<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_11_2346225</id>
	<title>France Votes Tuesday On Net Censorship</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1265876520000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes <i>"French lawmakers will vote next Tuesday <a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/335982">on a proposal to filter Internet traffic</a>. Part of a new security bill, the measure is intended to catch child pornographers. However, once the filtering system is in place it will allow the government to censor other material too. Slashdot has <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/10/1459257/Hackers-Attack-AU-Websites-To-Protest-Censorship?art\_pos=3">previously discussed Australia's proposed ISP-level filter</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes " French lawmakers will vote next Tuesday on a proposal to filter Internet traffic .
Part of a new security bill , the measure is intended to catch child pornographers .
However , once the filtering system is in place it will allow the government to censor other material too .
Slashdot has previously discussed Australia 's proposed ISP-level filter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes "French lawmakers will vote next Tuesday on a proposal to filter Internet traffic.
Part of a new security bill, the measure is intended to catch child pornographers.
However, once the filtering system is in place it will allow the government to censor other material too.
Slashdot has previously discussed Australia's proposed ISP-level filter.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110568</id>
	<title>Alex P. Keaton for President</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Please vote for Alex P. Keaton for President!</p><p>Nick: Yo, Alex!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Please vote for Alex P. Keaton for President ! Nick : Yo , Alex !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please vote for Alex P. Keaton for President!Nick: Yo, Alex!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31113758</id>
	<title>No such thing as kiddie porn website</title>
	<author>zzyzyx</author>
	<datestamp>1265993520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone here ever found "by accident" a kiddie porn website ? I bet no, because there is no such thing. They use other channels and are very secretive about their business. A public website would be like a stand selling kiddie porn DVDs on the streets.</p><p>This law is a pretext to censor more sites in the future. Sarkozy said himself that once the mechanism is in place they will see how it can be applied to intellectual property "issues".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone here ever found " by accident " a kiddie porn website ?
I bet no , because there is no such thing .
They use other channels and are very secretive about their business .
A public website would be like a stand selling kiddie porn DVDs on the streets.This law is a pretext to censor more sites in the future .
Sarkozy said himself that once the mechanism is in place they will see how it can be applied to intellectual property " issues " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone here ever found "by accident" a kiddie porn website ?
I bet no, because there is no such thing.
They use other channels and are very secretive about their business.
A public website would be like a stand selling kiddie porn DVDs on the streets.This law is a pretext to censor more sites in the future.
Sarkozy said himself that once the mechanism is in place they will see how it can be applied to intellectual property "issues".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111944</id>
	<title>Re:Qu'ils mangent de la brioche</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1265984760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason the leaders of France and Australia want to censor/monitor the internet is the same reason President Obama wants to track/monitor our cellphones.</p><p>Control.</p><p>They want the power to run our lives, as if they were lords of the manor, and we were mere serfs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason the leaders of France and Australia want to censor/monitor the internet is the same reason President Obama wants to track/monitor our cellphones.Control.They want the power to run our lives , as if they were lords of the manor , and we were mere serfs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason the leaders of France and Australia want to censor/monitor the internet is the same reason President Obama wants to track/monitor our cellphones.Control.They want the power to run our lives, as if they were lords of the manor, and we were mere serfs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112108</id>
	<title>Re:In Germany a similar law is defacto rejected</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1265985720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's actually not quite so clear whether the law has come into effect. The German president (whose job it is to sign the law) has requested some clarifying information - so far the parliament has not answered the request and the president has not signed. The legal situation in Germany is a little murky in that respect - the constitution doesn't give the president a veto on signing laws, he is supposed to be nothing but a rubber stamp. Then again - the constitution does require that laws don't violate the constitution and that is likely not the case here, and likely not believed to be the case by the parliament.
<p>
Apart from that, the web site of the French pirate party is here:
<a href="http://www.partipirate.org/" title="partipirate.org">http://www.partipirate.org/</a> [partipirate.org] - I hope our neighbors in France will support them and retain free access to the internet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually not quite so clear whether the law has come into effect .
The German president ( whose job it is to sign the law ) has requested some clarifying information - so far the parliament has not answered the request and the president has not signed .
The legal situation in Germany is a little murky in that respect - the constitution does n't give the president a veto on signing laws , he is supposed to be nothing but a rubber stamp .
Then again - the constitution does require that laws do n't violate the constitution and that is likely not the case here , and likely not believed to be the case by the parliament .
Apart from that , the web site of the French pirate party is here : http : //www.partipirate.org/ [ partipirate.org ] - I hope our neighbors in France will support them and retain free access to the internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually not quite so clear whether the law has come into effect.
The German president (whose job it is to sign the law) has requested some clarifying information - so far the parliament has not answered the request and the president has not signed.
The legal situation in Germany is a little murky in that respect - the constitution doesn't give the president a veto on signing laws, he is supposed to be nothing but a rubber stamp.
Then again - the constitution does require that laws don't violate the constitution and that is likely not the case here, and likely not believed to be the case by the parliament.
Apart from that, the web site of the French pirate party is here:
http://www.partipirate.org/ [partipirate.org] - I hope our neighbors in France will support them and retain free access to the internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111448</id>
	<title>Re:Qu'ils mangent de la brioche</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265979660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I feel sorry for you.<br>Once I had a dream about living in Australia - not anymore.<br>Well, I can forget about living in France too - not that I care much about France.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I feel sorry for you.Once I had a dream about living in Australia - not anymore.Well , I can forget about living in France too - not that I care much about France .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I feel sorry for you.Once I had a dream about living in Australia - not anymore.Well, I can forget about living in France too - not that I care much about France.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31114758</id>
	<title>Re:In Germany a similar law is defacto rejected</title>
	<author>richlv</author>
	<datestamp>1265997120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>erm. what about nazi symbols ? i think germany has more censorship than some of its neighbours...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>erm .
what about nazi symbols ?
i think germany has more censorship than some of its neighbours.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>erm.
what about nazi symbols ?
i think germany has more censorship than some of its neighbours...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31125388</id>
	<title>Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1266054660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Woosh! You really have a simple world view going on there!</p></div></blockquote><p>So narrow, I see more than one solution to child porn. I should just latch on to one potential solution, ignore the plentiful downsides, and accuse anyone else of being narrow-minded, just like you!</p><blockquote><div><p>It's not about propping up. It is about giving third world countries the same opportunity to develop that we had.</p></div></blockquote><p>Wait, I could have sworn you were providing a serious solution to child porn, not just grinding an axe about IP. After all, an enlightened and broad-minded being, you wouldn't mindlessly change the subject with the sole purpose of vilifying governments and IP holders, would you?</p><blockquote><div><p>You really dont get it: Human Trafficking and the closely related child porn originate in developing countries... to use your simple world view: That is its home.</p></div></blockquote><p>Uh huh. Exactly when did I give you the impression that I thought child porn had a home? Oh wait, you didn't just assume that, because I disagree with you, that I believe in every "simple-minded" chiche in the book? Because that would be hilariously ironic for you, Mr Broad-minded himself to make such a cliched and simple-minded assumption.</p><p>(Wow, you really are getting pwned today, huh?)</p><blockquote><div><p>Any policy to help the third world develop is an Anti-child porn stance.</p></div></blockquote><p>That's a half-truth. We have fuck all evidence that this particular measure will have any significant impact on child porn, much less that it has a more significant impact than the approaches we have already been using, much less that the economic hit is worth what little impact your plan will have on child porn. Actually, "half-truth" was a little generous.</p><p>And yes, relinquishing IP, allowing them to piggyback off our achievements, while certainly admirable, is propping them up. They have no right to benefit from our experiences.</p><blockquote><div><p>What your really saying is: "Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties for our companies.</p></div></blockquote><p>... which in turn greatly affects our economy, and in turn, us. Weakening IP weakens cultural and artistic growth, not just in abroad trade, but also at home. Allowing people overseas to trade in our IP allows people at home to trade in that IP at home. The net effect: it hurts us.</p><p>Again, I want to stress (in case Mr Broad-minded makes a knee-jerk reaction) that this does not mean we should not share some of our IP, but like any international aid, there should be limits to how much we are prepared to sacrifice our own growth to help the growth of others.</p><blockquote><div><p>Bravo, you effectively supporting the continuation of child exploitation, including pornography.</p></div></blockquote><p>And so ends Mr Broad-minded's lesson in how to be broad-minded.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Woosh !
You really have a simple world view going on there ! So narrow , I see more than one solution to child porn .
I should just latch on to one potential solution , ignore the plentiful downsides , and accuse anyone else of being narrow-minded , just like you ! It 's not about propping up .
It is about giving third world countries the same opportunity to develop that we had.Wait , I could have sworn you were providing a serious solution to child porn , not just grinding an axe about IP .
After all , an enlightened and broad-minded being , you would n't mindlessly change the subject with the sole purpose of vilifying governments and IP holders , would you ? You really dont get it : Human Trafficking and the closely related child porn originate in developing countries... to use your simple world view : That is its home.Uh huh .
Exactly when did I give you the impression that I thought child porn had a home ?
Oh wait , you did n't just assume that , because I disagree with you , that I believe in every " simple-minded " chiche in the book ?
Because that would be hilariously ironic for you , Mr Broad-minded himself to make such a cliched and simple-minded assumption .
( Wow , you really are getting pwned today , huh ?
) Any policy to help the third world develop is an Anti-child porn stance.That 's a half-truth .
We have fuck all evidence that this particular measure will have any significant impact on child porn , much less that it has a more significant impact than the approaches we have already been using , much less that the economic hit is worth what little impact your plan will have on child porn .
Actually , " half-truth " was a little generous.And yes , relinquishing IP , allowing them to piggyback off our achievements , while certainly admirable , is propping them up .
They have no right to benefit from our experiences.What your really saying is : " Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties for our companies.... which in turn greatly affects our economy , and in turn , us .
Weakening IP weakens cultural and artistic growth , not just in abroad trade , but also at home .
Allowing people overseas to trade in our IP allows people at home to trade in that IP at home .
The net effect : it hurts us.Again , I want to stress ( in case Mr Broad-minded makes a knee-jerk reaction ) that this does not mean we should not share some of our IP , but like any international aid , there should be limits to how much we are prepared to sacrifice our own growth to help the growth of others.Bravo , you effectively supporting the continuation of child exploitation , including pornography.And so ends Mr Broad-minded 's lesson in how to be broad-minded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woosh!
You really have a simple world view going on there!So narrow, I see more than one solution to child porn.
I should just latch on to one potential solution, ignore the plentiful downsides, and accuse anyone else of being narrow-minded, just like you!It's not about propping up.
It is about giving third world countries the same opportunity to develop that we had.Wait, I could have sworn you were providing a serious solution to child porn, not just grinding an axe about IP.
After all, an enlightened and broad-minded being, you wouldn't mindlessly change the subject with the sole purpose of vilifying governments and IP holders, would you?You really dont get it: Human Trafficking and the closely related child porn originate in developing countries... to use your simple world view: That is its home.Uh huh.
Exactly when did I give you the impression that I thought child porn had a home?
Oh wait, you didn't just assume that, because I disagree with you, that I believe in every "simple-minded" chiche in the book?
Because that would be hilariously ironic for you, Mr Broad-minded himself to make such a cliched and simple-minded assumption.
(Wow, you really are getting pwned today, huh?
)Any policy to help the third world develop is an Anti-child porn stance.That's a half-truth.
We have fuck all evidence that this particular measure will have any significant impact on child porn, much less that it has a more significant impact than the approaches we have already been using, much less that the economic hit is worth what little impact your plan will have on child porn.
Actually, "half-truth" was a little generous.And yes, relinquishing IP, allowing them to piggyback off our achievements, while certainly admirable, is propping them up.
They have no right to benefit from our experiences.What your really saying is: "Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties for our companies.... which in turn greatly affects our economy, and in turn, us.
Weakening IP weakens cultural and artistic growth, not just in abroad trade, but also at home.
Allowing people overseas to trade in our IP allows people at home to trade in that IP at home.
The net effect: it hurts us.Again, I want to stress (in case Mr Broad-minded makes a knee-jerk reaction) that this does not mean we should not share some of our IP, but like any international aid, there should be limits to how much we are prepared to sacrifice our own growth to help the growth of others.Bravo, you effectively supporting the continuation of child exploitation, including pornography.And so ends Mr Broad-minded's lesson in how to be broad-minded.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110826</id>
	<title>Re:Moving on to the next boogieman?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265971020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>First, there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal. Not a single one. Instead of blocking such a server, go there and raid it. It's illegal where it's hosted. Shut it down. Simple solution.</p></div></blockquote><p>(replying as AC because I just moderated some folk. hoping this doesn't revert it..)</p><p>Wikipedia says that Child Pornography is illegal in 'most' countries. Of course, I know Wikipedia is no guarantee of truth and no citation is provided there, so I wonder if you have one..?</p><p>Another issue is that this 'child' pornography you speak of is not well defined. If you are talking about pre-pubescent children then perhaps it is always illegal. If you are talking about 17yr olds, small breasted women or drawings of Lisa Simpson then perhaps not (and perhaps those jurisdictions where it is, it should not necessarily be - prosecuting teenagers for sexting each other is not right in my book)</p><p>..I like the rest of your comments btw..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal .
Not a single one .
Instead of blocking such a server , go there and raid it .
It 's illegal where it 's hosted .
Shut it down .
Simple solution .
( replying as AC because I just moderated some folk .
hoping this does n't revert it.. ) Wikipedia says that Child Pornography is illegal in 'most ' countries .
Of course , I know Wikipedia is no guarantee of truth and no citation is provided there , so I wonder if you have one.. ? Another issue is that this 'child ' pornography you speak of is not well defined .
If you are talking about pre-pubescent children then perhaps it is always illegal .
If you are talking about 17yr olds , small breasted women or drawings of Lisa Simpson then perhaps not ( and perhaps those jurisdictions where it is , it should not necessarily be - prosecuting teenagers for sexting each other is not right in my book ) ..I like the rest of your comments btw. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal.
Not a single one.
Instead of blocking such a server, go there and raid it.
It's illegal where it's hosted.
Shut it down.
Simple solution.
(replying as AC because I just moderated some folk.
hoping this doesn't revert it..)Wikipedia says that Child Pornography is illegal in 'most' countries.
Of course, I know Wikipedia is no guarantee of truth and no citation is provided there, so I wonder if you have one..?Another issue is that this 'child' pornography you speak of is not well defined.
If you are talking about pre-pubescent children then perhaps it is always illegal.
If you are talking about 17yr olds, small breasted women or drawings of Lisa Simpson then perhaps not (and perhaps those jurisdictions where it is, it should not necessarily be - prosecuting teenagers for sexting each other is not right in my book)..I like the rest of your comments btw..
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111654</id>
	<title>Re:Moving on to the next boogieman?</title>
	<author>Aceticon</author>
	<datestamp>1265982060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any law which is trully meant to protect people from unwanted/illegal content would pass the following check list:</p><ol><li>Is the list of sites that are blocked openly available for examination?</li><li>Is it a <b>voluntary</b> (for the consumer) mechanism working on the basis of opt-in (for example users would be able to go to their control page on their ISP and enable/disable the filter)?</li><li>Is there a <b>working</b> mechanism for independent reviewing of complaints about sites which were incorrectly added to the list and, if the complaint was found valid, remove said sites from the list in a <b>timelly</b> manner?</li></ol><p>Any law that fails one or more of this checks is just a censorship mechanism being created by those currently in power which is designed to silence dissent and critical political speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any law which is trully meant to protect people from unwanted/illegal content would pass the following check list : Is the list of sites that are blocked openly available for examination ? Is it a voluntary ( for the consumer ) mechanism working on the basis of opt-in ( for example users would be able to go to their control page on their ISP and enable/disable the filter ) ? Is there a working mechanism for independent reviewing of complaints about sites which were incorrectly added to the list and , if the complaint was found valid , remove said sites from the list in a timelly manner ? Any law that fails one or more of this checks is just a censorship mechanism being created by those currently in power which is designed to silence dissent and critical political speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any law which is trully meant to protect people from unwanted/illegal content would pass the following check list:Is the list of sites that are blocked openly available for examination?Is it a voluntary (for the consumer) mechanism working on the basis of opt-in (for example users would be able to go to their control page on their ISP and enable/disable the filter)?Is there a working mechanism for independent reviewing of complaints about sites which were incorrectly added to the list and, if the complaint was found valid, remove said sites from the list in a timelly manner?Any law that fails one or more of this checks is just a censorship mechanism being created by those currently in power which is designed to silence dissent and critical political speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111668</id>
	<title>Re:Moving on to the next boogieman?</title>
	<author>mdwh2</author>
	<datestamp>1265982240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. Here in the UK, the IWF's blocking system isn't even capable of blocking the images on the web, anyway! The Wikipedia fiasco showed us that. They blocked a page - containing perfectly legal text - that happened to inline the image, but the image was still available via the URL of the image, as well as via other HTML pages that inlined it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
Here in the UK , the IWF 's blocking system is n't even capable of blocking the images on the web , anyway !
The Wikipedia fiasco showed us that .
They blocked a page - containing perfectly legal text - that happened to inline the image , but the image was still available via the URL of the image , as well as via other HTML pages that inlined it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
Here in the UK, the IWF's blocking system isn't even capable of blocking the images on the web, anyway!
The Wikipedia fiasco showed us that.
They blocked a page - containing perfectly legal text - that happened to inline the image, but the image was still available via the URL of the image, as well as via other HTML pages that inlined it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112898</id>
	<title>Re:In Germany a similar law is defacto rejected</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1265989740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If it's one thing that has always amazed me about Germany, it's the drive that Germans have towards reducing even the most complex of concepts to a single word--however many syllables it involves. There are single words in German that require entire paragraphs in English to translate.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If it 's one thing that has always amazed me about Germany , it 's the drive that Germans have towards reducing even the most complex of concepts to a single word--however many syllables it involves .
There are single words in German that require entire paragraphs in English to translate .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it's one thing that has always amazed me about Germany, it's the drive that Germans have towards reducing even the most complex of concepts to a single word--however many syllables it involves.
There are single words in German that require entire paragraphs in English to translate.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111802</id>
	<title>Re:Stop crying</title>
	<author>myspace-cn</author>
	<datestamp>1265983560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your representative, doesn't represent you. The sooner you stop eating the turds they're feedin you the better off things will be.<br>Your representative (sic) doesn't know or understand tcpip, which means he's more than likely just rubber stamping legislation which was prepared by the law enforcement and security industry who comprise his real corporate masters.<br>France ain't the only country they're trying to screw right now.<br>It's the treasonous GLOBAL control and takeover of information, all under a plethora of psyop names, reasons, and excuses.<br>Your only toolbox to fight is by exposing your representative and starting a grass roots force which train-wrecks your representative's next election.  (Your electronic voting machine have probably already arrived in your country so now your mission is to get your corrupt rep's OFF the ballot before the election even begins)<br>While this advice is for the USA, pretty much goes to every country facing this (UN command and control) crap under it's zillion piddly ass issues the UN is using at local government level to trick your country into giving up it's sovereignty using climate, epa, and other half-baked UN nation usurping treaties.<br>The second thing you should to is actually LEARN TCPIP so you "know" when your representative is full of turds. Furthermore you'll have a better grasp on the details of the issue. This way you can look your rep in the face and say, "this won't work, and here's why."  as opposed to taking even "my word" on this.</p><p>In short I want you to think for yourself, and stop trusting your representatives, they are all undeserving of your trust. Just because they made it into office doesn't mean they are correct.</p><p>Take that canned response and turn it against the corruption.  Show a side by side.  Here's what I asked, here's what they said in response.  Expose their apathy and real agenda!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your representative , does n't represent you .
The sooner you stop eating the turds they 're feedin you the better off things will be.Your representative ( sic ) does n't know or understand tcpip , which means he 's more than likely just rubber stamping legislation which was prepared by the law enforcement and security industry who comprise his real corporate masters.France ai n't the only country they 're trying to screw right now.It 's the treasonous GLOBAL control and takeover of information , all under a plethora of psyop names , reasons , and excuses.Your only toolbox to fight is by exposing your representative and starting a grass roots force which train-wrecks your representative 's next election .
( Your electronic voting machine have probably already arrived in your country so now your mission is to get your corrupt rep 's OFF the ballot before the election even begins ) While this advice is for the USA , pretty much goes to every country facing this ( UN command and control ) crap under it 's zillion piddly ass issues the UN is using at local government level to trick your country into giving up it 's sovereignty using climate , epa , and other half-baked UN nation usurping treaties.The second thing you should to is actually LEARN TCPIP so you " know " when your representative is full of turds .
Furthermore you 'll have a better grasp on the details of the issue .
This way you can look your rep in the face and say , " this wo n't work , and here 's why .
" as opposed to taking even " my word " on this.In short I want you to think for yourself , and stop trusting your representatives , they are all undeserving of your trust .
Just because they made it into office does n't mean they are correct.Take that canned response and turn it against the corruption .
Show a side by side .
Here 's what I asked , here 's what they said in response .
Expose their apathy and real agenda !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your representative, doesn't represent you.
The sooner you stop eating the turds they're feedin you the better off things will be.Your representative (sic) doesn't know or understand tcpip, which means he's more than likely just rubber stamping legislation which was prepared by the law enforcement and security industry who comprise his real corporate masters.France ain't the only country they're trying to screw right now.It's the treasonous GLOBAL control and takeover of information, all under a plethora of psyop names, reasons, and excuses.Your only toolbox to fight is by exposing your representative and starting a grass roots force which train-wrecks your representative's next election.
(Your electronic voting machine have probably already arrived in your country so now your mission is to get your corrupt rep's OFF the ballot before the election even begins)While this advice is for the USA, pretty much goes to every country facing this (UN command and control) crap under it's zillion piddly ass issues the UN is using at local government level to trick your country into giving up it's sovereignty using climate, epa, and other half-baked UN nation usurping treaties.The second thing you should to is actually LEARN TCPIP so you "know" when your representative is full of turds.
Furthermore you'll have a better grasp on the details of the issue.
This way you can look your rep in the face and say, "this won't work, and here's why.
"  as opposed to taking even "my word" on this.In short I want you to think for yourself, and stop trusting your representatives, they are all undeserving of your trust.
Just because they made it into office doesn't mean they are correct.Take that canned response and turn it against the corruption.
Show a side by side.
Here's what I asked, here's what they said in response.
Expose their apathy and real agenda!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112092</id>
	<title>Re:Qu'ils mangent de la brioche</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265985660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow... incredible, that's the first time I see a grammatically correct French sentence on slashdot, bravo !</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow... incredible , that 's the first time I see a grammatically correct French sentence on slashdot , bravo !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow... incredible, that's the first time I see a grammatically correct French sentence on slashdot, bravo !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31116490</id>
	<title>Re:Child pornography? Does it exist?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266003900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost every time I browse for porn I run into some child porn. I don't know what I'm doing different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost every time I browse for porn I run into some child porn .
I do n't know what I 'm doing different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost every time I browse for porn I run into some child porn.
I don't know what I'm doing different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110652</id>
	<title>VOTING in france - isn't that banned these days?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I thought Sarkoszy was essentially a dictator when it comes to all things MAFIAA.</p><p>he pushes in laws that have been voted against all the way up to the european parliament.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Sarkoszy was essentially a dictator when it comes to all things MAFIAA.he pushes in laws that have been voted against all the way up to the european parliament .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Sarkoszy was essentially a dictator when it comes to all things MAFIAA.he pushes in laws that have been voted against all the way up to the european parliament.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31126616</id>
	<title>France</title>
	<author>Phoghat</author>
	<datestamp>1266073440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whoa, France  and censorship? No more "French postcards", French Films, French ticklers, French kissing, anything that was termed "French" having to do with sex???????
<p> France censorship is ponderous man, ponderous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoa , France and censorship ?
No more " French postcards " , French Films , French ticklers , French kissing , anything that was termed " French " having to do with sex ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
France censorship is ponderous man , ponderous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoa, France  and censorship?
No more "French postcards", French Films, French ticklers, French kissing, anything that was termed "French" having to do with sex???????
France censorship is ponderous man, ponderous.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111884</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265984340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You had me up to the last two sentences.  Saying we can't act against one form of perversion because another form is protected is excellent argument for why no forms of perversion should be protected.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You had me up to the last two sentences .
Saying we ca n't act against one form of perversion because another form is protected is excellent argument for why no forms of perversion should be protected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You had me up to the last two sentences.
Saying we can't act against one form of perversion because another form is protected is excellent argument for why no forms of perversion should be protected.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682</id>
	<title>Moving on to the next boogieman?</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1265968980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Appearantly the terrrrrists don't cut it anymore, so we pulled another one out of the hat. Or maybe just that terrrrrists don't work in this context because, well, there's really little harm done by webpages that tell us how we infidels will all go to hell, so someone else had to fill the void.</p><p>So let's imagine how this works for a moment. Someone sets up a webpage with kiddy porn in a country where such a thing is legal and the only way to fight that would be that ISPs in France are required to block it.</p><p>Anyone here able to point out the three problems with this approach?</p><p>First, there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal. Not a single one. Instead of blocking such a server, go there and raid it. It's illegal where it's hosted. Shut it down. Simple solution.</p><p>Second, blocking does jack in a world where international proxy servers exist. So unless such a law is installed worldwide, the blocking means jack.</p><p>Oh, one might argue that they're pushing for it, to get it internationally installed. That leads to the third problem:</p><p>It's not distributed through webpages. It's not on webpages you could filter. It's working along the same channels that most illegal content travels. Hacked FTP servers, P2P and usenet.</p><p>So there's now two possibilities. Either our politicians don't know what they're doing and they're trying to appear like they're "doing something". Or the whole thing is just a strawman for something you could not push through because of public resistance. Personally, I think it's a combination of the two.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Appearantly the terrrrrists do n't cut it anymore , so we pulled another one out of the hat .
Or maybe just that terrrrrists do n't work in this context because , well , there 's really little harm done by webpages that tell us how we infidels will all go to hell , so someone else had to fill the void.So let 's imagine how this works for a moment .
Someone sets up a webpage with kiddy porn in a country where such a thing is legal and the only way to fight that would be that ISPs in France are required to block it.Anyone here able to point out the three problems with this approach ? First , there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal .
Not a single one .
Instead of blocking such a server , go there and raid it .
It 's illegal where it 's hosted .
Shut it down .
Simple solution.Second , blocking does jack in a world where international proxy servers exist .
So unless such a law is installed worldwide , the blocking means jack.Oh , one might argue that they 're pushing for it , to get it internationally installed .
That leads to the third problem : It 's not distributed through webpages .
It 's not on webpages you could filter .
It 's working along the same channels that most illegal content travels .
Hacked FTP servers , P2P and usenet.So there 's now two possibilities .
Either our politicians do n't know what they 're doing and they 're trying to appear like they 're " doing something " .
Or the whole thing is just a strawman for something you could not push through because of public resistance .
Personally , I think it 's a combination of the two .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Appearantly the terrrrrists don't cut it anymore, so we pulled another one out of the hat.
Or maybe just that terrrrrists don't work in this context because, well, there's really little harm done by webpages that tell us how we infidels will all go to hell, so someone else had to fill the void.So let's imagine how this works for a moment.
Someone sets up a webpage with kiddy porn in a country where such a thing is legal and the only way to fight that would be that ISPs in France are required to block it.Anyone here able to point out the three problems with this approach?First, there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal.
Not a single one.
Instead of blocking such a server, go there and raid it.
It's illegal where it's hosted.
Shut it down.
Simple solution.Second, blocking does jack in a world where international proxy servers exist.
So unless such a law is installed worldwide, the blocking means jack.Oh, one might argue that they're pushing for it, to get it internationally installed.
That leads to the third problem:It's not distributed through webpages.
It's not on webpages you could filter.
It's working along the same channels that most illegal content travels.
Hacked FTP servers, P2P and usenet.So there's now two possibilities.
Either our politicians don't know what they're doing and they're trying to appear like they're "doing something".
Or the whole thing is just a strawman for something you could not push through because of public resistance.
Personally, I think it's a combination of the two.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112204</id>
	<title>Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265986320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>c'mon<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. really?  You're going to try and argue that an abolition of IP laws would eliminate child pornography?  Let's not be silly here.</p></div><p>IP laws that are not so draconian, allowing for developing world to, well, develop will reduce poverty in these countries. GP provider plenty of research references supporting his/her claim. Reducing the list of third world countries laws would reduce the "Source Countries" for human trafficking (i.e. major if not the principle source of child exploitation and pornography). It's not that hard to understand, really, c'mon you can do it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>c'mon .. really ? You 're going to try and argue that an abolition of IP laws would eliminate child pornography ?
Let 's not be silly here.IP laws that are not so draconian , allowing for developing world to , well , develop will reduce poverty in these countries .
GP provider plenty of research references supporting his/her claim .
Reducing the list of third world countries laws would reduce the " Source Countries " for human trafficking ( i.e .
major if not the principle source of child exploitation and pornography ) .
It 's not that hard to understand , really , c'mon you can do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>c'mon .. really?  You're going to try and argue that an abolition of IP laws would eliminate child pornography?
Let's not be silly here.IP laws that are not so draconian, allowing for developing world to, well, develop will reduce poverty in these countries.
GP provider plenty of research references supporting his/her claim.
Reducing the list of third world countries laws would reduce the "Source Countries" for human trafficking (i.e.
major if not the principle source of child exploitation and pornography).
It's not that hard to understand, really, c'mon you can do it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111738</id>
	<title>Re:Moving on to the next boogieman?</title>
	<author>Bearhouse</author>
	<datestamp>1265982780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal. Not a single one. Instead of blocking such a server, go there and raid it. It's illegal where it's hosted. Shut it down. Simple solution.</p><p>Would that it was simple.  Many things are 'illegal' in many places, yet still carry on.  If the US &amp; EU can't/won't stop Iran &amp; N. Korea from getting/having the bomb, (and increasingly, the means to deliver it via ICBM), then what's the chance they'll go to the mat with Russia, China et al over attack sites / spammer / kiddie porn / whatever?</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal .
Not a single one .
Instead of blocking such a server , go there and raid it .
It 's illegal where it 's hosted .
Shut it down .
Simple solution.Would that it was simple .
Many things are 'illegal ' in many places , yet still carry on .
If the US &amp; EU ca n't/wo n't stop Iran &amp; N. Korea from getting/having the bomb , ( and increasingly , the means to deliver it via ICBM ) , then what 's the chance they 'll go to the mat with Russia , China et al over attack sites / spammer / kiddie porn / whatever ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal.
Not a single one.
Instead of blocking such a server, go there and raid it.
It's illegal where it's hosted.
Shut it down.
Simple solution.Would that it was simple.
Many things are 'illegal' in many places, yet still carry on.
If the US &amp; EU can't/won't stop Iran &amp; N. Korea from getting/having the bomb, (and increasingly, the means to deliver it via ICBM), then what's the chance they'll go to the mat with Russia, China et al over attack sites / spammer / kiddie porn / whatever?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31115870</id>
	<title>Downloading now</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1266001380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Libert&#233;, &#233;gal........</p><p>La connexion r&#233;seau a &#233;t&#233; interrompue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Libert   ,   gal........La connexion r   seau a   t   interrompue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Liberté, égal........La connexion réseau a été interrompue.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111126</id>
	<title>I don't support pedoes, but...</title>
	<author>ElusiveJoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265975820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Homosexuals aren't something new. They have existed in humanity for at least as long as recorded history. Putting our fingers in our ears and going lalalala will do nothing to protect our children or get homosexuals the treatment that will enable them to participate in our society.</p><p>I would like to see the creation of programs where homosexuals can go in and receive counseling without getting a life long stigma. Perhaps we could create colony towns (or more like prisons) out in the middle of nowhere so they can live their lives without temptation. We could do more research on the brains of homosexuals and develop drugs to re-orientate homosexuals to a more healthy sex, preferably in a delivery mechanism like the Norplant birth control so the homosexual just needs to get it replaced every few years.</p><p>I just wanted to note the fruitlessness and the cruelty of your idea. Oh, I forgot, homosexuals are <b>protected</b> by law now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Homosexuals are n't something new .
They have existed in humanity for at least as long as recorded history .
Putting our fingers in our ears and going lalalala will do nothing to protect our children or get homosexuals the treatment that will enable them to participate in our society.I would like to see the creation of programs where homosexuals can go in and receive counseling without getting a life long stigma .
Perhaps we could create colony towns ( or more like prisons ) out in the middle of nowhere so they can live their lives without temptation .
We could do more research on the brains of homosexuals and develop drugs to re-orientate homosexuals to a more healthy sex , preferably in a delivery mechanism like the Norplant birth control so the homosexual just needs to get it replaced every few years.I just wanted to note the fruitlessness and the cruelty of your idea .
Oh , I forgot , homosexuals are protected by law now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Homosexuals aren't something new.
They have existed in humanity for at least as long as recorded history.
Putting our fingers in our ears and going lalalala will do nothing to protect our children or get homosexuals the treatment that will enable them to participate in our society.I would like to see the creation of programs where homosexuals can go in and receive counseling without getting a life long stigma.
Perhaps we could create colony towns (or more like prisons) out in the middle of nowhere so they can live their lives without temptation.
We could do more research on the brains of homosexuals and develop drugs to re-orientate homosexuals to a more healthy sex, preferably in a delivery mechanism like the Norplant birth control so the homosexual just needs to get it replaced every few years.I just wanted to note the fruitlessness and the cruelty of your idea.
Oh, I forgot, homosexuals are protected by law now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758</id>
	<title>This will not be effective at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265970000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The pedophiles will just use Tor or come up with some stenographic technique to hide their stuff. Meanwhile everyone else will suffer from burdening the costs of implementing and maintaining such a system.</p><p>Child porn occasionally gets posted to fetish image boards by Russian spammers. So France, say good bye to 4chan.</p><p>Your children won't be any safer if some random pervert can't get his jollies from images anymore. Without an outlet, these pervertss will bottle it up until they can no longer hold back. Innocent children will most likely suffer due to such legislation.</p><p>Pedophiles aren't something new. They have existed in humanity for at least as long as recorded history. Putting our fingers in our ears and going lalalala will do nothing to protect our children or get pedophiles the treatment that will enable them to participate in our society.</p><p>I would like to see the creation of programs where pedophiles can go in and receive counseling without getting a life long stigma. Perhaps we could create child-less towns out in the middle of nowhere so they can live their lives without temptation. We could do more research on the brains of pedophiles and develop drugs to re-orientate pedophiles to a more healthy age range, preferably in a delivery mechanism like the Norplant birth control so the pedophile just needs to get it replaced every few years.</p><p>My cousin was molested as a child by her father's boss. He fled to France to avoid prosecution. It did significant trauma to my extended family. I want to prevent such things from happening to other families and to do that we have to work with the pedophiles so they get help and don't hide in the woodwork, being consumed by their desires yet secluded due to fears of being expelled from society.</p><p>Locking up people who have thumbnails of child porn in their browser's caches does nothing to solve the problem either and creates a new class of victims, those who went to an image board for a legal fetish that is far removed from child porn but got spammed by the Russian child porn spammers. It is a crime in some places to delete it from your cache, leaving many people in a no-win situation caused by ignorant and useless politicians.</p><p>Please think before wasting tax dollars and giving people a false sense of security. Every wasted dollar could be better spent feeding, clothing, and educating children, or perhaps fix up a nation's crumbling transportation infrastructure or installing optical fiber to every house.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The pedophiles will just use Tor or come up with some stenographic technique to hide their stuff .
Meanwhile everyone else will suffer from burdening the costs of implementing and maintaining such a system.Child porn occasionally gets posted to fetish image boards by Russian spammers .
So France , say good bye to 4chan.Your children wo n't be any safer if some random pervert ca n't get his jollies from images anymore .
Without an outlet , these pervertss will bottle it up until they can no longer hold back .
Innocent children will most likely suffer due to such legislation.Pedophiles are n't something new .
They have existed in humanity for at least as long as recorded history .
Putting our fingers in our ears and going lalalala will do nothing to protect our children or get pedophiles the treatment that will enable them to participate in our society.I would like to see the creation of programs where pedophiles can go in and receive counseling without getting a life long stigma .
Perhaps we could create child-less towns out in the middle of nowhere so they can live their lives without temptation .
We could do more research on the brains of pedophiles and develop drugs to re-orientate pedophiles to a more healthy age range , preferably in a delivery mechanism like the Norplant birth control so the pedophile just needs to get it replaced every few years.My cousin was molested as a child by her father 's boss .
He fled to France to avoid prosecution .
It did significant trauma to my extended family .
I want to prevent such things from happening to other families and to do that we have to work with the pedophiles so they get help and do n't hide in the woodwork , being consumed by their desires yet secluded due to fears of being expelled from society.Locking up people who have thumbnails of child porn in their browser 's caches does nothing to solve the problem either and creates a new class of victims , those who went to an image board for a legal fetish that is far removed from child porn but got spammed by the Russian child porn spammers .
It is a crime in some places to delete it from your cache , leaving many people in a no-win situation caused by ignorant and useless politicians.Please think before wasting tax dollars and giving people a false sense of security .
Every wasted dollar could be better spent feeding , clothing , and educating children , or perhaps fix up a nation 's crumbling transportation infrastructure or installing optical fiber to every house .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The pedophiles will just use Tor or come up with some stenographic technique to hide their stuff.
Meanwhile everyone else will suffer from burdening the costs of implementing and maintaining such a system.Child porn occasionally gets posted to fetish image boards by Russian spammers.
So France, say good bye to 4chan.Your children won't be any safer if some random pervert can't get his jollies from images anymore.
Without an outlet, these pervertss will bottle it up until they can no longer hold back.
Innocent children will most likely suffer due to such legislation.Pedophiles aren't something new.
They have existed in humanity for at least as long as recorded history.
Putting our fingers in our ears and going lalalala will do nothing to protect our children or get pedophiles the treatment that will enable them to participate in our society.I would like to see the creation of programs where pedophiles can go in and receive counseling without getting a life long stigma.
Perhaps we could create child-less towns out in the middle of nowhere so they can live their lives without temptation.
We could do more research on the brains of pedophiles and develop drugs to re-orientate pedophiles to a more healthy age range, preferably in a delivery mechanism like the Norplant birth control so the pedophile just needs to get it replaced every few years.My cousin was molested as a child by her father's boss.
He fled to France to avoid prosecution.
It did significant trauma to my extended family.
I want to prevent such things from happening to other families and to do that we have to work with the pedophiles so they get help and don't hide in the woodwork, being consumed by their desires yet secluded due to fears of being expelled from society.Locking up people who have thumbnails of child porn in their browser's caches does nothing to solve the problem either and creates a new class of victims, those who went to an image board for a legal fetish that is far removed from child porn but got spammed by the Russian child porn spammers.
It is a crime in some places to delete it from your cache, leaving many people in a no-win situation caused by ignorant and useless politicians.Please think before wasting tax dollars and giving people a false sense of security.
Every wasted dollar could be better spent feeding, clothing, and educating children, or perhaps fix up a nation's crumbling transportation infrastructure or installing optical fiber to every house.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111598</id>
	<title>*Sigh*</title>
	<author>AmonTheMetalhead</author>
	<datestamp>1265981100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is it with all these internet filtering attempts all over the globe? There's the classic one, China, there is a project in Belgium (and it's actually in use, the purpose is to stop pedophiles, but ironically, the only site on the list so far was a site that outed pedophiles, it's blocked because it violated those 'people's' rights, but only on DNS level (*)), the Dutch also have a similar approach, and Australia wants to follow suit.<br>
<br>
The good thing here in Belgium is that a judge has to order the site blocking, not some bureaucratic office, so there is a recourse through law to defend your site against it, if you must, but still, such attempts are <b>futile</b>, technology will work around them.<br>
<br>
(*)<a href="http://www.ispam.nl/archives/9116/belgische-providers-blokkeren-anti-pedofielen-website/" title="ispam.nl" rel="nofollow">http://www.ispam.nl/archives/9116/belgische-providers-blokkeren-anti-pedofielen-website/</a> [ispam.nl]</htmltext>
<tokenext>What is it with all these internet filtering attempts all over the globe ?
There 's the classic one , China , there is a project in Belgium ( and it 's actually in use , the purpose is to stop pedophiles , but ironically , the only site on the list so far was a site that outed pedophiles , it 's blocked because it violated those 'people 's ' rights , but only on DNS level ( * ) ) , the Dutch also have a similar approach , and Australia wants to follow suit .
The good thing here in Belgium is that a judge has to order the site blocking , not some bureaucratic office , so there is a recourse through law to defend your site against it , if you must , but still , such attempts are futile , technology will work around them .
( * ) http : //www.ispam.nl/archives/9116/belgische-providers-blokkeren-anti-pedofielen-website/ [ ispam.nl ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is it with all these internet filtering attempts all over the globe?
There's the classic one, China, there is a project in Belgium (and it's actually in use, the purpose is to stop pedophiles, but ironically, the only site on the list so far was a site that outed pedophiles, it's blocked because it violated those 'people's' rights, but only on DNS level (*)), the Dutch also have a similar approach, and Australia wants to follow suit.
The good thing here in Belgium is that a judge has to order the site blocking, not some bureaucratic office, so there is a recourse through law to defend your site against it, if you must, but still, such attempts are futile, technology will work around them.
(*)http://www.ispam.nl/archives/9116/belgische-providers-blokkeren-anti-pedofielen-website/ [ispam.nl]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31115482</id>
	<title>When the Internet Has to Come and Get You</title>
	<author>Bushido Hacks</author>
	<datestamp>1266000060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The excuse of "We are trying to rid the Internet of Child Pornography" is a lie. Whenever someone claims that they are censoring or filtering the Internet, it is generally for one of the following reasons.
<ol>
<li> <b>Stifle Dissent.</b> - If the government had any interest in censoring or filtering the Internet to remove child pornography in the first place, they would have arrested several members of the <b>Recording Industry Association of America</b> for uploading the illegal content on torrent sites and the Usenet.  Possession is 9/10th of the law. More than likely, the people at Warner Records and the like have about 11/10ths worth.  Did they actually believe that anyone on public file sharing networks would actually be interested in downloading such content, espeically if the subject header was "12 year old girl naked"?</li><li> <b>Corporate/Industrial Interest</b> - You may not know this but in America, the Internet has already been filtered. Try finding a website that exposes the oil industry, or at least one that doesn't sound like some guy who stays up late listening to George Norry.</li><li> <b>C.Y.A.</b> - From past experiences that we've seen in recent current events, we have seen that most people who are speaking for internet censorship and speaking out against network neutrality are the ones with blood on their hands.  Someone at AT&amp;T probably told old Ted Stevens that if the Internet was filtered, the public would not be able to find out about his house in Alaska.  Likewise, when financial firms take advice from giant telecommunications conglomerates about how they can help them avoid Sunshine Laws and corporate accountability, business folks (who now have recently discovered that thanks to their wealth they can just about get away with murder), they can use their power to influence the free flow of information and now they can do the same with elected leadership thanks to a recent SCOTUS decision.</li><li> <b>Distraction</b> - Much like the previous point. Only--HEY LOOK OVER THERE! [runs away]</li><li> <b>Astroturfing</b> - Two words: Fox News.  The media machine that Rupert Murdoch created to support the views of the Republican Party have now taken a radical and distorted perversion turn for the worse.  The center-right viewpoints of the GOP have been substituted with the hard-right "Party of No" and the ideas to include a far-right view point to enabled the Tea Party, lead by racists leaders like Tom Tancredo who in there myopic self-centered beliefs want to bring back the Voting Literacy tests that were outlawed in 1965 by the Voting Rights Act. Nevermind that most immigrants know more about the American civics (including the U.S. Constitution) than most natural-born citizens do.</li></ol><p>

<b>Control is the name of the game.</b> <br>
<br>
And if the Internet has to come out and get the people whose interest are not to prevent child pornography from spreading on the Internet (which they usually aren't), <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/02/12/1428201/Anonymous-Speaks-About-Australian-Govt-Attacks" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">they will come and get them.</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The excuse of " We are trying to rid the Internet of Child Pornography " is a lie .
Whenever someone claims that they are censoring or filtering the Internet , it is generally for one of the following reasons .
Stifle Dissent .
- If the government had any interest in censoring or filtering the Internet to remove child pornography in the first place , they would have arrested several members of the Recording Industry Association of America for uploading the illegal content on torrent sites and the Usenet .
Possession is 9/10th of the law .
More than likely , the people at Warner Records and the like have about 11/10ths worth .
Did they actually believe that anyone on public file sharing networks would actually be interested in downloading such content , espeically if the subject header was " 12 year old girl naked " ?
Corporate/Industrial Interest - You may not know this but in America , the Internet has already been filtered .
Try finding a website that exposes the oil industry , or at least one that does n't sound like some guy who stays up late listening to George Norry .
C.Y.A. - From past experiences that we 've seen in recent current events , we have seen that most people who are speaking for internet censorship and speaking out against network neutrality are the ones with blood on their hands .
Someone at AT&amp;T probably told old Ted Stevens that if the Internet was filtered , the public would not be able to find out about his house in Alaska .
Likewise , when financial firms take advice from giant telecommunications conglomerates about how they can help them avoid Sunshine Laws and corporate accountability , business folks ( who now have recently discovered that thanks to their wealth they can just about get away with murder ) , they can use their power to influence the free flow of information and now they can do the same with elected leadership thanks to a recent SCOTUS decision .
Distraction - Much like the previous point .
Only--HEY LOOK OVER THERE !
[ runs away ] Astroturfing - Two words : Fox News .
The media machine that Rupert Murdoch created to support the views of the Republican Party have now taken a radical and distorted perversion turn for the worse .
The center-right viewpoints of the GOP have been substituted with the hard-right " Party of No " and the ideas to include a far-right view point to enabled the Tea Party , lead by racists leaders like Tom Tancredo who in there myopic self-centered beliefs want to bring back the Voting Literacy tests that were outlawed in 1965 by the Voting Rights Act .
Nevermind that most immigrants know more about the American civics ( including the U.S. Constitution ) than most natural-born citizens do .
Control is the name of the game .
And if the Internet has to come out and get the people whose interest are not to prevent child pornography from spreading on the Internet ( which they usually are n't ) , they will come and get them .
[ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The excuse of "We are trying to rid the Internet of Child Pornography" is a lie.
Whenever someone claims that they are censoring or filtering the Internet, it is generally for one of the following reasons.
Stifle Dissent.
- If the government had any interest in censoring or filtering the Internet to remove child pornography in the first place, they would have arrested several members of the Recording Industry Association of America for uploading the illegal content on torrent sites and the Usenet.
Possession is 9/10th of the law.
More than likely, the people at Warner Records and the like have about 11/10ths worth.
Did they actually believe that anyone on public file sharing networks would actually be interested in downloading such content, espeically if the subject header was "12 year old girl naked"?
Corporate/Industrial Interest - You may not know this but in America, the Internet has already been filtered.
Try finding a website that exposes the oil industry, or at least one that doesn't sound like some guy who stays up late listening to George Norry.
C.Y.A. - From past experiences that we've seen in recent current events, we have seen that most people who are speaking for internet censorship and speaking out against network neutrality are the ones with blood on their hands.
Someone at AT&amp;T probably told old Ted Stevens that if the Internet was filtered, the public would not be able to find out about his house in Alaska.
Likewise, when financial firms take advice from giant telecommunications conglomerates about how they can help them avoid Sunshine Laws and corporate accountability, business folks (who now have recently discovered that thanks to their wealth they can just about get away with murder), they can use their power to influence the free flow of information and now they can do the same with elected leadership thanks to a recent SCOTUS decision.
Distraction - Much like the previous point.
Only--HEY LOOK OVER THERE!
[runs away] Astroturfing - Two words: Fox News.
The media machine that Rupert Murdoch created to support the views of the Republican Party have now taken a radical and distorted perversion turn for the worse.
The center-right viewpoints of the GOP have been substituted with the hard-right "Party of No" and the ideas to include a far-right view point to enabled the Tea Party, lead by racists leaders like Tom Tancredo who in there myopic self-centered beliefs want to bring back the Voting Literacy tests that were outlawed in 1965 by the Voting Rights Act.
Nevermind that most immigrants know more about the American civics (including the U.S. Constitution) than most natural-born citizens do.
Control is the name of the game.
And if the Internet has to come out and get the people whose interest are not to prevent child pornography from spreading on the Internet (which they usually aren't), they will come and get them.
[slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110894</id>
	<title>EU-Law and blocking internet content</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265972160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, again the discussion who should do what.

Should these sites be blocked or should action be taken against the people who are responsible.
My personal opinion is, that blocking traffic does not work, as it is hard to block IP addresses, as one IP Address can hold several websites, which normally are legitemate. So only blocking through the DNS server of the provider would be an option, which can be fooled so easily.So that kind of blocks have no impact or use. In my opinion, the governments should make sure that the provider/owner of the sites gets prosecuted in the country where the server is located.
That will work, if measures of pressure will come in to effect, like blocking all that countries IP traffic to and from Europe. There is no country which can allow something like that to happen.

The legal side though is different. The EU-Law says clearly and that has recently been confirmed by the EU Commission, that it is Governments and providers NOT allowed to block content on the internet. There is a EU-Law which provides the freedom to receive everything you want, either by means of the internet, air or other means.
(if this law is good or not, I leave that for the reader to judge). The law is based on the fact, that not the receiver is to blame for something, but the one who causes it.)

In my opinion, there should be a EU wide control organisation, part of the Justice Department / EU Court of Justice, which will take action for the EU against countries who enable People to have website which hold Child Pormografy or other illegal stuff. Only if it is done on a large scale there will be any chance for success.

By the way, the EU already said it will bring France for the EU court(s) if they would vote for this law. That is also the reason, why Germany has not implemented the law, as they also got a negative advice on the implementation from the EU.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , again the discussion who should do what .
Should these sites be blocked or should action be taken against the people who are responsible .
My personal opinion is , that blocking traffic does not work , as it is hard to block IP addresses , as one IP Address can hold several websites , which normally are legitemate .
So only blocking through the DNS server of the provider would be an option , which can be fooled so easily.So that kind of blocks have no impact or use .
In my opinion , the governments should make sure that the provider/owner of the sites gets prosecuted in the country where the server is located .
That will work , if measures of pressure will come in to effect , like blocking all that countries IP traffic to and from Europe .
There is no country which can allow something like that to happen .
The legal side though is different .
The EU-Law says clearly and that has recently been confirmed by the EU Commission , that it is Governments and providers NOT allowed to block content on the internet .
There is a EU-Law which provides the freedom to receive everything you want , either by means of the internet , air or other means .
( if this law is good or not , I leave that for the reader to judge ) .
The law is based on the fact , that not the receiver is to blame for something , but the one who causes it .
) In my opinion , there should be a EU wide control organisation , part of the Justice Department / EU Court of Justice , which will take action for the EU against countries who enable People to have website which hold Child Pormografy or other illegal stuff .
Only if it is done on a large scale there will be any chance for success .
By the way , the EU already said it will bring France for the EU court ( s ) if they would vote for this law .
That is also the reason , why Germany has not implemented the law , as they also got a negative advice on the implementation from the EU .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, again the discussion who should do what.
Should these sites be blocked or should action be taken against the people who are responsible.
My personal opinion is, that blocking traffic does not work, as it is hard to block IP addresses, as one IP Address can hold several websites, which normally are legitemate.
So only blocking through the DNS server of the provider would be an option, which can be fooled so easily.So that kind of blocks have no impact or use.
In my opinion, the governments should make sure that the provider/owner of the sites gets prosecuted in the country where the server is located.
That will work, if measures of pressure will come in to effect, like blocking all that countries IP traffic to and from Europe.
There is no country which can allow something like that to happen.
The legal side though is different.
The EU-Law says clearly and that has recently been confirmed by the EU Commission, that it is Governments and providers NOT allowed to block content on the internet.
There is a EU-Law which provides the freedom to receive everything you want, either by means of the internet, air or other means.
(if this law is good or not, I leave that for the reader to judge).
The law is based on the fact, that not the receiver is to blame for something, but the one who causes it.
)

In my opinion, there should be a EU wide control organisation, part of the Justice Department / EU Court of Justice, which will take action for the EU against countries who enable People to have website which hold Child Pormografy or other illegal stuff.
Only if it is done on a large scale there will be any chance for success.
By the way, the EU already said it will bring France for the EU court(s) if they would vote for this law.
That is also the reason, why Germany has not implemented the law, as they also got a negative advice on the implementation from the EU.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111824</id>
	<title>Re:This will not be effective at all</title>
	<author>ae1294</author>
	<datestamp>1265983740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Your children won't be any safer if some random pervert can't get his jollies from images anymore. Without an outlet, these pervertss will bottle it up until they can no longer hold back. Innocent children will most likely suffer due to such legislation.</p></div><p>I think this is their goal. Once the filter doesn't work and makes things worse (even only if it's media hype) they will be able to pass more restrictive laws. It's a means to an end and that end is perfect control of the masses and information in general with no oversight by anyone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your children wo n't be any safer if some random pervert ca n't get his jollies from images anymore .
Without an outlet , these pervertss will bottle it up until they can no longer hold back .
Innocent children will most likely suffer due to such legislation.I think this is their goal .
Once the filter does n't work and makes things worse ( even only if it 's media hype ) they will be able to pass more restrictive laws .
It 's a means to an end and that end is perfect control of the masses and information in general with no oversight by anyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your children won't be any safer if some random pervert can't get his jollies from images anymore.
Without an outlet, these pervertss will bottle it up until they can no longer hold back.
Innocent children will most likely suffer due to such legislation.I think this is their goal.
Once the filter doesn't work and makes things worse (even only if it's media hype) they will be able to pass more restrictive laws.
It's a means to an end and that end is perfect control of the masses and information in general with no oversight by anyone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110896</id>
	<title>Re:Stop crying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265972160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wait.. Anonymous has a secret handshake?!</p><p>I must be a newfag..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wait.. Anonymous has a secret handshake ?
! I must be a newfag. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wait.. Anonymous has a secret handshake?
!I must be a newfag..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110754</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110678</id>
	<title>Ah,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Child porn, the European root password to society. In America, it's "terrorism". I'm sure the politicians rejoice that the people let themselves be programmed to respond in such a simple way to these root passwords...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Child porn , the European root password to society .
In America , it 's " terrorism " .
I 'm sure the politicians rejoice that the people let themselves be programmed to respond in such a simple way to these root passwords.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Child porn, the European root password to society.
In America, it's "terrorism".
I'm sure the politicians rejoice that the people let themselves be programmed to respond in such a simple way to these root passwords...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111470</id>
	<title>Re:In Germany a similar law is defacto rejected</title>
	<author>jeti</author>
	<datestamp>1265979900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More interestingly, the German law would not only have blocked sites featuring CP, but also sites linking or referring to CP. This would have included pages like Wikileaks that provide leaked blocking lists of other countries. These lists are interesting because only a miniscule minority of the blocked sites feature actual CP.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More interestingly , the German law would not only have blocked sites featuring CP , but also sites linking or referring to CP .
This would have included pages like Wikileaks that provide leaked blocking lists of other countries .
These lists are interesting because only a miniscule minority of the blocked sites feature actual CP .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More interestingly, the German law would not only have blocked sites featuring CP, but also sites linking or referring to CP.
This would have included pages like Wikileaks that provide leaked blocking lists of other countries.
These lists are interesting because only a miniscule minority of the blocked sites feature actual CP.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110542</id>
	<title>Ah, those french</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, we're gonna build our own internet! With blackjack and hookers!  Hmm, wait a minute...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , we 're gon na build our own internet !
With blackjack and hookers !
Hmm , wait a minute.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, we're gonna build our own internet!
With blackjack and hookers!
Hmm, wait a minute...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31115958</id>
	<title>L'express internet poll</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266001800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I saw an unofficial poll on the<a href="http://www.lexpress.fr/" title="lexpress.fr" rel="nofollow">L'Express</a> [lexpress.fr] web site yesterday where only 25\% were for this, nearly 1/2 were against, and the others were either undecided or apathetic. So that's a 2-1 margin in favour of those against this law. However admittedly there is a self-selection bias in the poll.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I saw an unofficial poll on theL'Express [ lexpress.fr ] web site yesterday where only 25 \ % were for this , nearly 1/2 were against , and the others were either undecided or apathetic .
So that 's a 2-1 margin in favour of those against this law .
However admittedly there is a self-selection bias in the poll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I saw an unofficial poll on theL'Express [lexpress.fr] web site yesterday where only 25\% were for this, nearly 1/2 were against, and the others were either undecided or apathetic.
So that's a 2-1 margin in favour of those against this law.
However admittedly there is a self-selection bias in the poll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111572</id>
	<title>Child pornography? Does it exist?</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1265980920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"catch child pornographers"<br>AKA, pour apprendre ce qui piratent les filmes et musiques par internet....</p></div></blockquote><p>I have been surfing the web since 1993 and have yet to see one single picture of a child engaged in sex. I see pornographic pictures everywhere in the internet, it's "rule 34", but not a single one of these pictures has a child in it.</p><p>However, inexistence of proof is not proof of not existence. If you start from the assumption that child pornography <i>does</i> exist somewhere, then you must create <i>very</i> powerful search tools to find it.</p><p>And a very powerful tool is too tempting to be left alone, if it does not accomplish its primary task there might be other uses for it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" catch child pornographers " AKA , pour apprendre ce qui piratent les filmes et musiques par internet....I have been surfing the web since 1993 and have yet to see one single picture of a child engaged in sex .
I see pornographic pictures everywhere in the internet , it 's " rule 34 " , but not a single one of these pictures has a child in it.However , inexistence of proof is not proof of not existence .
If you start from the assumption that child pornography does exist somewhere , then you must create very powerful search tools to find it.And a very powerful tool is too tempting to be left alone , if it does not accomplish its primary task there might be other uses for it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"catch child pornographers"AKA, pour apprendre ce qui piratent les filmes et musiques par internet....I have been surfing the web since 1993 and have yet to see one single picture of a child engaged in sex.
I see pornographic pictures everywhere in the internet, it's "rule 34", but not a single one of these pictures has a child in it.However, inexistence of proof is not proof of not existence.
If you start from the assumption that child pornography does exist somewhere, then you must create very powerful search tools to find it.And a very powerful tool is too tempting to be left alone, if it does not accomplish its primary task there might be other uses for it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110594</id>
	<title>yo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"catch child pornographers"<br>AKA, pour apprendre ce qui piratent les filmes et musiques par internet....</p><p>Tabarnac!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" catch child pornographers " AKA , pour apprendre ce qui piratent les filmes et musiques par internet....Tabarnac !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"catch child pornographers"AKA, pour apprendre ce qui piratent les filmes et musiques par internet....Tabarnac!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112580</id>
	<title>Child Porn and Terrorists. Be SCARED!</title>
	<author>Jackie\_Chan\_Fan</author>
	<datestamp>1265988420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I love when governments use Child Porn and Terrorism to control its people through fear and lies. Here's to hoping that France doesnt fall victim to this pathetic tactic.</p><p>The reality is, Child porn is a tiny fraction of everything on the Net, and It can be masked in encrypted files etc... So lets just fucking stop using these boogieman tactics to try and control the people, and their freedoms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I love when governments use Child Porn and Terrorism to control its people through fear and lies .
Here 's to hoping that France doesnt fall victim to this pathetic tactic.The reality is , Child porn is a tiny fraction of everything on the Net , and It can be masked in encrypted files etc... So lets just fucking stop using these boogieman tactics to try and control the people , and their freedoms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love when governments use Child Porn and Terrorism to control its people through fear and lies.
Here's to hoping that France doesnt fall victim to this pathetic tactic.The reality is, Child porn is a tiny fraction of everything on the Net, and It can be masked in encrypted files etc... So lets just fucking stop using these boogieman tactics to try and control the people, and their freedoms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31113110</id>
	<title>lol</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265990880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is CP the new bin ladin ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is CP the new bin ladin ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is CP the new bin ladin ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31125496</id>
	<title>O Those Crazy French</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266057120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's next? The French version of Tiananmen Square?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's next ?
The French version of Tiananmen Square ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's next?
The French version of Tiananmen Square?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111376</id>
	<title>Re:This will not be effective at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265978580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as I agree with your ideas, there's no way your proposals will be even considered anything other than pro-pedophile.<br>Governments couldn't be less interested in eliminating child abuse as it makes for a perfect strawman argument, with automatic, instinctive and not appealable lynching of everyone who opposes it. It is indeed the root password to society, as someone else pointed out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I agree with your ideas , there 's no way your proposals will be even considered anything other than pro-pedophile.Governments could n't be less interested in eliminating child abuse as it makes for a perfect strawman argument , with automatic , instinctive and not appealable lynching of everyone who opposes it .
It is indeed the root password to society , as someone else pointed out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I agree with your ideas, there's no way your proposals will be even considered anything other than pro-pedophile.Governments couldn't be less interested in eliminating child abuse as it makes for a perfect strawman argument, with automatic, instinctive and not appealable lynching of everyone who opposes it.
It is indeed the root password to society, as someone else pointed out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111604</id>
	<title>Re:This will not be effective at all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265981400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Perhaps we could create child-less towns out in the middle of nowhere so they can live their lives without temptation.</p></div></blockquote><p>That would be fun: watching it being burned to the ground by groups of vigilantes every time a child disappeared.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps we could create child-less towns out in the middle of nowhere so they can live their lives without temptation.That would be fun : watching it being burned to the ground by groups of vigilantes every time a child disappeared .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps we could create child-less towns out in the middle of nowhere so they can live their lives without temptation.That would be fun: watching it being burned to the ground by groups of vigilantes every time a child disappeared.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111548</id>
	<title>Re:Moving on to the next boogieman?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265980680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's working along the same channels that most illegal content travels. Hacked FTP servers, P2P and usenet.</p></div><p>Just wait....pretty soon they will start holding the owners of the FTP sites accountable for not properly locking down their sites.<br>Get hacked....go directly to prison.</p><p>And I don't know about France or Austrailia, but they're waging a pretty successful war on P2P and usenet over here.   Most ISPs either don't offer usenet, or block the binaries, in response to illegal pressure by the then-Attorney General of NYS.<br>And all ISPs are looking for ways to block P2P so they can pocket the network improvement money.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's working along the same channels that most illegal content travels .
Hacked FTP servers , P2P and usenet.Just wait....pretty soon they will start holding the owners of the FTP sites accountable for not properly locking down their sites.Get hacked....go directly to prison.And I do n't know about France or Austrailia , but they 're waging a pretty successful war on P2P and usenet over here .
Most ISPs either do n't offer usenet , or block the binaries , in response to illegal pressure by the then-Attorney General of NYS.And all ISPs are looking for ways to block P2P so they can pocket the network improvement money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's working along the same channels that most illegal content travels.
Hacked FTP servers, P2P and usenet.Just wait....pretty soon they will start holding the owners of the FTP sites accountable for not properly locking down their sites.Get hacked....go directly to prison.And I don't know about France or Austrailia, but they're waging a pretty successful war on P2P and usenet over here.
Most ISPs either don't offer usenet, or block the binaries, in response to illegal pressure by the then-Attorney General of NYS.And all ISPs are looking for ways to block P2P so they can pocket the network improvement money.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110676</id>
	<title>How about a different approach</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they didn't make possession illegal then ordinary citizens with spare time would be able to help track down those who actually make the material.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they did n't make possession illegal then ordinary citizens with spare time would be able to help track down those who actually make the material .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they didn't make possession illegal then ordinary citizens with spare time would be able to help track down those who actually make the material.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31113950</id>
	<title>Re:Qu'ils mangent de la brioche</title>
	<author>Asic Eng</author>
	<datestamp>1265994240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The French pirate party is here: <a href="http://www.partipirate.org/" title="partipirate.org">http://www.partipirate.org/</a> [partipirate.org] - I hope some of the French Slashdotters will consider voting for them or joining them. Having their membership rise sharply would be a nice signal for the other French parties.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The French pirate party is here : http : //www.partipirate.org/ [ partipirate.org ] - I hope some of the French Slashdotters will consider voting for them or joining them .
Having their membership rise sharply would be a nice signal for the other French parties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The French pirate party is here: http://www.partipirate.org/ [partipirate.org] - I hope some of the French Slashdotters will consider voting for them or joining them.
Having their membership rise sharply would be a nice signal for the other French parties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111792</id>
	<title>Re:Moving on to the next boogieman?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265983500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's about votes, which falls I guess into your first option. And I'm not just talking about the votes of the Right leaning blue rinse set. In the Australian Senate, the balance of power is held by two independant and five Greens party senators. To get any legislation through the Upper House, the current Labor government has to negotiate with these seven people.</p><p>This means that these individuals hold an incredible amount of power, and can pretty much ask for anything they want.</p><p>One of those independants is from the Family First party, a Christian Right movement. I strongly suspect that this whole internet filter idea is from them, and is being kept afloat by promises made by Labor to Family First in return for a vote in the Senate. With the government not being very popular with the Greens right now (due to environmental policies) keeping Family First on side is even more important. So Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, is the nominated fall guy to keep Family First appeased while Labor get about getting what they need through the Senate.</p><p>Family First, after a noisy arrival to the Senate, have been very quiet of late. I would not be surprised if the deal included a "shut the hell up" clause as well, as Family First campaigning for the filter would put a lot of people off-side who don't agree with the rest of their policies (eg abortion, same-sex marriage, etc).</p><p>The government is not stupid; they know the filter wont work. And either the whole thing will fall over and never get passed into Law, but was worth it to get the Family First senate vote; or it will become Law and this and future governments will have a tool for regulating the Internet. Either way, it's a win for the government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's about votes , which falls I guess into your first option .
And I 'm not just talking about the votes of the Right leaning blue rinse set .
In the Australian Senate , the balance of power is held by two independant and five Greens party senators .
To get any legislation through the Upper House , the current Labor government has to negotiate with these seven people.This means that these individuals hold an incredible amount of power , and can pretty much ask for anything they want.One of those independants is from the Family First party , a Christian Right movement .
I strongly suspect that this whole internet filter idea is from them , and is being kept afloat by promises made by Labor to Family First in return for a vote in the Senate .
With the government not being very popular with the Greens right now ( due to environmental policies ) keeping Family First on side is even more important .
So Senator Stephen Conroy , Minister for Broadband , Communications and the Digital Economy , is the nominated fall guy to keep Family First appeased while Labor get about getting what they need through the Senate.Family First , after a noisy arrival to the Senate , have been very quiet of late .
I would not be surprised if the deal included a " shut the hell up " clause as well , as Family First campaigning for the filter would put a lot of people off-side who do n't agree with the rest of their policies ( eg abortion , same-sex marriage , etc ) .The government is not stupid ; they know the filter wont work .
And either the whole thing will fall over and never get passed into Law , but was worth it to get the Family First senate vote ; or it will become Law and this and future governments will have a tool for regulating the Internet .
Either way , it 's a win for the government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's about votes, which falls I guess into your first option.
And I'm not just talking about the votes of the Right leaning blue rinse set.
In the Australian Senate, the balance of power is held by two independant and five Greens party senators.
To get any legislation through the Upper House, the current Labor government has to negotiate with these seven people.This means that these individuals hold an incredible amount of power, and can pretty much ask for anything they want.One of those independants is from the Family First party, a Christian Right movement.
I strongly suspect that this whole internet filter idea is from them, and is being kept afloat by promises made by Labor to Family First in return for a vote in the Senate.
With the government not being very popular with the Greens right now (due to environmental policies) keeping Family First on side is even more important.
So Senator Stephen Conroy, Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, is the nominated fall guy to keep Family First appeased while Labor get about getting what they need through the Senate.Family First, after a noisy arrival to the Senate, have been very quiet of late.
I would not be surprised if the deal included a "shut the hell up" clause as well, as Family First campaigning for the filter would put a lot of people off-side who don't agree with the rest of their policies (eg abortion, same-sex marriage, etc).The government is not stupid; they know the filter wont work.
And either the whole thing will fall over and never get passed into Law, but was worth it to get the Family First senate vote; or it will become Law and this and future governments will have a tool for regulating the Internet.
Either way, it's a win for the government.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31113744</id>
	<title>Re:Qu'ils mangent de la brioche</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265993460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The majority of "first-world" governments are now so far beyond a reasonable level of power and revenue that improvement can only come from reducing, not expanding, power and revenue. But this will never happen, since the people in the business of government have a vested interest in continually expanding the business, pulling more money through their hands, and making the system more exploitable for those who control it.</p><p>Let's call a spade a spade here: whatever the problem with government (and there are many), lack of money and power sure as hell ain't it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The majority of " first-world " governments are now so far beyond a reasonable level of power and revenue that improvement can only come from reducing , not expanding , power and revenue .
But this will never happen , since the people in the business of government have a vested interest in continually expanding the business , pulling more money through their hands , and making the system more exploitable for those who control it.Let 's call a spade a spade here : whatever the problem with government ( and there are many ) , lack of money and power sure as hell ai n't it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The majority of "first-world" governments are now so far beyond a reasonable level of power and revenue that improvement can only come from reducing, not expanding, power and revenue.
But this will never happen, since the people in the business of government have a vested interest in continually expanding the business, pulling more money through their hands, and making the system more exploitable for those who control it.Let's call a spade a spade here: whatever the problem with government (and there are many), lack of money and power sure as hell ain't it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110608</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111580</id>
	<title>Re:Moving on to the next boogieman?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265980980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on your definition ofcourse. There are things available in Japan for instance that could get you arrested elsewhere. Very easily arrested...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on your definition ofcourse .
There are things available in Japan for instance that could get you arrested elsewhere .
Very easily arrested.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on your definition ofcourse.
There are things available in Japan for instance that could get you arrested elsewhere.
Very easily arrested...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111636</id>
	<title>Re:Ah,</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1265981760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Pssht!, or else the Yanks will point out that child pornography consumers pay their warez with SWIFT bank transfers...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Pssht ! , or else the Yanks will point out that child pornography consumers pay their warez with SWIFT bank transfers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pssht!, or else the Yanks will point out that child pornography consumers pay their warez with SWIFT bank transfers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110678</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110754</id>
	<title>Stop crying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265970000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will lead to one thing only; those savvy enough or caring about privacy and freedom will jump off in darknets, shadownets, unionrings and dissapear from the "radar" and jump through proxies or VPNs.</p><p>It'll create these "underground movements" with a club-like and elitist sense of self, as annonymous, with secret handshakes and what have you.</p><p>Those using the internet to chat up girls, share their pictures on facebook or what have you, will continue to use their computers as glorified TV-sets.</p><p>And why would that be a bad thing? You are concerned about "your internet experience being taken away", it'll just get more cool and secretive for you, while for the 9yo cousin the internet is "pretty with rainbows and unicorns" and not fapping old men trying to have them send pictures.</p><p>Don't get me wrong; I'm all against censorship and muffling freedom of speech, but the internet has grown a bit out of the "lets see what we can do with it" as alot of peopel are exposed to it. We'll just have to bend into a few curves to have the same experience, but is that really an issue?</p><p>To me it just seems these lawmakers at one hand are worried about what can potentially come out of the internet biting teens butt, but otoh not wanting to kill freedom of speech alltogether.</p><p>During "Blackout Europe" (3 strike policy law on EU level), I've written my European representative to urge him to recognise the internet not just as "playground for innovation" but also as basic right and medium to exercise freedom of speech, which was received well. So in my naive world, I'd like to think they do care about free speech, but also protecting some weaker people in society. It's a difficult balance, but internet-censorship wont make a difference to all the crying nerds: we'll get our tools and methods to get around it and nobody is going to proscecute you for that. Its not that we've been desensitized and media got a bit like a loose whore people need to be exposed to that involentary: Make it a bit harder to get but not illegal... fe, like porn used to be in the 90s; being younger as 18 you had to get creative to get porn, but we got it anyway without it been blasted in our field of vision constantly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will lead to one thing only ; those savvy enough or caring about privacy and freedom will jump off in darknets , shadownets , unionrings and dissapear from the " radar " and jump through proxies or VPNs.It 'll create these " underground movements " with a club-like and elitist sense of self , as annonymous , with secret handshakes and what have you.Those using the internet to chat up girls , share their pictures on facebook or what have you , will continue to use their computers as glorified TV-sets.And why would that be a bad thing ?
You are concerned about " your internet experience being taken away " , it 'll just get more cool and secretive for you , while for the 9yo cousin the internet is " pretty with rainbows and unicorns " and not fapping old men trying to have them send pictures.Do n't get me wrong ; I 'm all against censorship and muffling freedom of speech , but the internet has grown a bit out of the " lets see what we can do with it " as alot of peopel are exposed to it .
We 'll just have to bend into a few curves to have the same experience , but is that really an issue ? To me it just seems these lawmakers at one hand are worried about what can potentially come out of the internet biting teens butt , but otoh not wanting to kill freedom of speech alltogether.During " Blackout Europe " ( 3 strike policy law on EU level ) , I 've written my European representative to urge him to recognise the internet not just as " playground for innovation " but also as basic right and medium to exercise freedom of speech , which was received well .
So in my naive world , I 'd like to think they do care about free speech , but also protecting some weaker people in society .
It 's a difficult balance , but internet-censorship wont make a difference to all the crying nerds : we 'll get our tools and methods to get around it and nobody is going to proscecute you for that .
Its not that we 've been desensitized and media got a bit like a loose whore people need to be exposed to that involentary : Make it a bit harder to get but not illegal... fe , like porn used to be in the 90s ; being younger as 18 you had to get creative to get porn , but we got it anyway without it been blasted in our field of vision constantly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will lead to one thing only; those savvy enough or caring about privacy and freedom will jump off in darknets, shadownets, unionrings and dissapear from the "radar" and jump through proxies or VPNs.It'll create these "underground movements" with a club-like and elitist sense of self, as annonymous, with secret handshakes and what have you.Those using the internet to chat up girls, share their pictures on facebook or what have you, will continue to use their computers as glorified TV-sets.And why would that be a bad thing?
You are concerned about "your internet experience being taken away", it'll just get more cool and secretive for you, while for the 9yo cousin the internet is "pretty with rainbows and unicorns" and not fapping old men trying to have them send pictures.Don't get me wrong; I'm all against censorship and muffling freedom of speech, but the internet has grown a bit out of the "lets see what we can do with it" as alot of peopel are exposed to it.
We'll just have to bend into a few curves to have the same experience, but is that really an issue?To me it just seems these lawmakers at one hand are worried about what can potentially come out of the internet biting teens butt, but otoh not wanting to kill freedom of speech alltogether.During "Blackout Europe" (3 strike policy law on EU level), I've written my European representative to urge him to recognise the internet not just as "playground for innovation" but also as basic right and medium to exercise freedom of speech, which was received well.
So in my naive world, I'd like to think they do care about free speech, but also protecting some weaker people in society.
It's a difficult balance, but internet-censorship wont make a difference to all the crying nerds: we'll get our tools and methods to get around it and nobody is going to proscecute you for that.
Its not that we've been desensitized and media got a bit like a loose whore people need to be exposed to that involentary: Make it a bit harder to get but not illegal... fe, like porn used to be in the 90s; being younger as 18 you had to get creative to get porn, but we got it anyway without it been blasted in our field of vision constantly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31115088</id>
	<title>Re:Child pornography? Does it exist?</title>
	<author>stim</author>
	<datestamp>1265998320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you must use that boring civilian internet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you must use that boring civilian internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you must use that boring civilian internet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111394</id>
	<title>Re:In Germany a similar law is defacto rejected</title>
	<author>RobVB</author>
	<datestamp>1265978880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excellent post. Regarding your last statement, it does indeed seem that such a law is against the German constitution. From <a href="https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf" title="btg-bestellservice.de">your link</a> [btg-bestellservice.de] (I added the bold):</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Article 5<br>[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences]<br>(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his<br>opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance<br>from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom<br>of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed.<br><b>There shall be no censorship.</b></p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Excellent post .
Regarding your last statement , it does indeed seem that such a law is against the German constitution .
From your link [ btg-bestellservice.de ] ( I added the bold ) : Article 5 [ Freedom of expression , arts and sciences ] ( 1 ) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate hisopinions in speech , writing and pictures , and to inform himself without hindrancefrom generally accessible sources .
Freedom of the press and freedomof reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed.There shall be no censorship .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excellent post.
Regarding your last statement, it does indeed seem that such a law is against the German constitution.
From your link [btg-bestellservice.de] (I added the bold):Article 5[Freedom of expression, arts and sciences](1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate hisopinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrancefrom generally accessible sources.
Freedom of the press and freedomof reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed.There shall be no censorship. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110644</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31124878</id>
	<title>Fight back!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266002400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's  no secret that the interent is a huge threat against the government control people!!!They trying to shut off the people thats what the evil politicians are doing with this crap shit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's no secret that the interent is a huge threat against the government control people ! !
! They trying to shut off the people thats what the evil politicians are doing with this crap shit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's  no secret that the interent is a huge threat against the government control people!!
!They trying to shut off the people thats what the evil politicians are doing with this crap shit!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112998</id>
	<title>What about encrypted traffic</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265990220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a older friend who often needs help with his computer.  He's a paranoid former American so he's afraid someone might be monitoring his phone and his internet connection.  ( I don't know why, the only thing he talks about is mathematics.  The only thing you'll find on his computers is math papers. )</p><p>Point is that, for his comfort, I use a remote desktop software and pump it through ssh so it can't be tapped.  Now, supposing that the governments start monitoring traffic so they can block certain sites and track who's sending what to whom, what are they going to do with encrypted traffic where they cannot discern the content.  Do they just assume that since it's encrypted it must be evil, where most people just want to preserve their privacy and safety, and block it as well?</p><p>How will the law handle Virtual Private Networks between employees and employers, between corporate sites (yeah, I worked for an outsourcer and one of our customers used a virtual private network through the internet to connect their offices.  I was in network support and got a call one day to call a particular network provider somewhere in the midwest to tell them to fix the traffic on one of their routers so our customer's VPN through the internet would work faster.  We had no direct contract with the company.  They were just one of many links in the anonymous chain that carried the traffic between sites.) or just between friends who share enough common interest in something not illegal that they VPN their home networks together, perhaps working on their own film or music album.</p><p>If anyone thinks that some legislation to force ISPs to monitor traffic is going to make the problems of child pornography or music and movie piracy go away, they are terribly naive.  Such legislation would be similar to asking the post office to start opening mail to make sure it's not being used to send child pornography or pirated music.  But, there are laws that say the mail cannot be routinely opened for such inspections and, when it comes to sending LARGE amounts of data (say a terabyte), a hard drive sent through Priority Post beats the internet for bandwidth pretty much every time.</p><p>Yeah, I'm posting anonymously in fear of the zealots who will think that I'm advocating using encrypted network connections for such purposes.  I don't need to advocate for it.  It's likely happening already.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a older friend who often needs help with his computer .
He 's a paranoid former American so he 's afraid someone might be monitoring his phone and his internet connection .
( I do n't know why , the only thing he talks about is mathematics .
The only thing you 'll find on his computers is math papers .
) Point is that , for his comfort , I use a remote desktop software and pump it through ssh so it ca n't be tapped .
Now , supposing that the governments start monitoring traffic so they can block certain sites and track who 's sending what to whom , what are they going to do with encrypted traffic where they can not discern the content .
Do they just assume that since it 's encrypted it must be evil , where most people just want to preserve their privacy and safety , and block it as well ? How will the law handle Virtual Private Networks between employees and employers , between corporate sites ( yeah , I worked for an outsourcer and one of our customers used a virtual private network through the internet to connect their offices .
I was in network support and got a call one day to call a particular network provider somewhere in the midwest to tell them to fix the traffic on one of their routers so our customer 's VPN through the internet would work faster .
We had no direct contract with the company .
They were just one of many links in the anonymous chain that carried the traffic between sites .
) or just between friends who share enough common interest in something not illegal that they VPN their home networks together , perhaps working on their own film or music album.If anyone thinks that some legislation to force ISPs to monitor traffic is going to make the problems of child pornography or music and movie piracy go away , they are terribly naive .
Such legislation would be similar to asking the post office to start opening mail to make sure it 's not being used to send child pornography or pirated music .
But , there are laws that say the mail can not be routinely opened for such inspections and , when it comes to sending LARGE amounts of data ( say a terabyte ) , a hard drive sent through Priority Post beats the internet for bandwidth pretty much every time.Yeah , I 'm posting anonymously in fear of the zealots who will think that I 'm advocating using encrypted network connections for such purposes .
I do n't need to advocate for it .
It 's likely happening already .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a older friend who often needs help with his computer.
He's a paranoid former American so he's afraid someone might be monitoring his phone and his internet connection.
( I don't know why, the only thing he talks about is mathematics.
The only thing you'll find on his computers is math papers.
)Point is that, for his comfort, I use a remote desktop software and pump it through ssh so it can't be tapped.
Now, supposing that the governments start monitoring traffic so they can block certain sites and track who's sending what to whom, what are they going to do with encrypted traffic where they cannot discern the content.
Do they just assume that since it's encrypted it must be evil, where most people just want to preserve their privacy and safety, and block it as well?How will the law handle Virtual Private Networks between employees and employers, between corporate sites (yeah, I worked for an outsourcer and one of our customers used a virtual private network through the internet to connect their offices.
I was in network support and got a call one day to call a particular network provider somewhere in the midwest to tell them to fix the traffic on one of their routers so our customer's VPN through the internet would work faster.
We had no direct contract with the company.
They were just one of many links in the anonymous chain that carried the traffic between sites.
) or just between friends who share enough common interest in something not illegal that they VPN their home networks together, perhaps working on their own film or music album.If anyone thinks that some legislation to force ISPs to monitor traffic is going to make the problems of child pornography or music and movie piracy go away, they are terribly naive.
Such legislation would be similar to asking the post office to start opening mail to make sure it's not being used to send child pornography or pirated music.
But, there are laws that say the mail cannot be routinely opened for such inspections and, when it comes to sending LARGE amounts of data (say a terabyte), a hard drive sent through Priority Post beats the internet for bandwidth pretty much every time.Yeah, I'm posting anonymously in fear of the zealots who will think that I'm advocating using encrypted network connections for such purposes.
I don't need to advocate for it.
It's likely happening already.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111626</id>
	<title>Re:VOTING in france - isn't that banned these days</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1265981580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I thought Sarkoszy was essentially a dictator when it comes to all things MAFIAA.</p></div><p>Not only when it comes to MAFIAA. He wants to be a dictator in all areas of life.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought Sarkoszy was essentially a dictator when it comes to all things MAFIAA.Not only when it comes to MAFIAA .
He wants to be a dictator in all areas of life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought Sarkoszy was essentially a dictator when it comes to all things MAFIAA.Not only when it comes to MAFIAA.
He wants to be a dictator in all areas of life.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111914</id>
	<title>Re:This will not be effective at all</title>
	<author>VShael</author>
	<datestamp>1265984580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are several humane ways to deal with paedophiles. But none are realistic.</p><p>Here's one, for example. The government has a large-ish database of realistic (and unrealistic) computer images of CP. To get access to the legal images, you register as a paedophile. This makes the possession of these government created images legal. But any other CP image, or derivative of the legal ones, is illegal.</p><p>You can live your live relatively normal, with access to legal CP for your own gratification, and without harassment. But if you commit a CP related crime, the penalty is harsh and your orientation is made public.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are several humane ways to deal with paedophiles .
But none are realistic.Here 's one , for example .
The government has a large-ish database of realistic ( and unrealistic ) computer images of CP .
To get access to the legal images , you register as a paedophile .
This makes the possession of these government created images legal .
But any other CP image , or derivative of the legal ones , is illegal.You can live your live relatively normal , with access to legal CP for your own gratification , and without harassment .
But if you commit a CP related crime , the penalty is harsh and your orientation is made public .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are several humane ways to deal with paedophiles.
But none are realistic.Here's one, for example.
The government has a large-ish database of realistic (and unrealistic) computer images of CP.
To get access to the legal images, you register as a paedophile.
This makes the possession of these government created images legal.
But any other CP image, or derivative of the legal ones, is illegal.You can live your live relatively normal, with access to legal CP for your own gratification, and without harassment.
But if you commit a CP related crime, the penalty is harsh and your orientation is made public.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110562</id>
	<title>And now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cue the jokes about the french net surrendering in 3... 2... 1...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cue the jokes about the french net surrendering in 3... 2... 1.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cue the jokes about the french net surrendering in 3... 2... 1...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111558</id>
	<title>Re:Moving on to the next boogieman?</title>
	<author>Mornedhel</author>
	<datestamp>1265980740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's working along the same channels that most illegal content travels. Hacked FTP servers, P2P and usenet.</p></div><p>In other news, French lawmakers intend to make all FTP, P2P and usenet traffic, as well as non-sanctioned HTTP traffic, illegal.</p><p>The Commission Nationale Informatique et Libert&eacute;s' only comment on the matter was "TIMEOUT REACHED".</p><p>Seriously, don't give them any ideas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's working along the same channels that most illegal content travels .
Hacked FTP servers , P2P and usenet.In other news , French lawmakers intend to make all FTP , P2P and usenet traffic , as well as non-sanctioned HTTP traffic , illegal.The Commission Nationale Informatique et Libert   s ' only comment on the matter was " TIMEOUT REACHED " .Seriously , do n't give them any ideas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's working along the same channels that most illegal content travels.
Hacked FTP servers, P2P and usenet.In other news, French lawmakers intend to make all FTP, P2P and usenet traffic, as well as non-sanctioned HTTP traffic, illegal.The Commission Nationale Informatique et Libertés' only comment on the matter was "TIMEOUT REACHED".Seriously, don't give them any ideas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112678</id>
	<title>Re:Moving on to the next boogieman?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265988780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>First, there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal. Not a single one. Instead of blocking such a server, go there and raid it. It's illegal where it's hosted. Shut it down. Simple solution.</p></div><p>That's expensive, and when you're just fishing for votes rather than actually caring about abuse of children, "out of sight, out of mind" works just as well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal .
Not a single one .
Instead of blocking such a server , go there and raid it .
It 's illegal where it 's hosted .
Shut it down .
Simple solution.That 's expensive , and when you 're just fishing for votes rather than actually caring about abuse of children , " out of sight , out of mind " works just as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal.
Not a single one.
Instead of blocking such a server, go there and raid it.
It's illegal where it's hosted.
Shut it down.
Simple solution.That's expensive, and when you're just fishing for votes rather than actually caring about abuse of children, "out of sight, out of mind" works just as well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111224</id>
	<title>tubgi8L</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265976840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>grandstanders, the our chances And easy - only 7000 users of ofone single puny by clicking here 200 running NT itself backwards, t;o its laid-back they learn from our</htmltext>
<tokenext>grandstanders , the our chances And easy - only 7000 users of ofone single puny by clicking here 200 running NT itself backwards , t ; o its laid-back they learn from our</tokentext>
<sentencetext>grandstanders, the our chances And easy - only 7000 users of ofone single puny by clicking here 200 running NT itself backwards, t;o its laid-back they learn from our</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111122</id>
	<title>Re:This will not be effective at all</title>
	<author>Pecisk</author>
	<datestamp>1265975760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are trying to propose emotionally balanced and practical approach to problem. Nice, but it won't work, because it won't bring profit to anyone - nor politics, nor media. Hysteria sells. It gives politician's populism a base and possibility to be taken serious and voted in where you want to be. For media, it sells newspapers. And more or less, people don't want to think, they want to react and act. That's how we are built, to response to *stereotypical* threat. And if you point out that they can hurt lot of innocent people, that it can be treatible, and that you can actually try to forgive those people - it conflicts with their way how they're reacting to threats. It confuses them.</p><p>It is easy to "kill" the threat than act responsible. Like it or not, people's minds don't change so fast as we would like to, unfortunately.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are trying to propose emotionally balanced and practical approach to problem .
Nice , but it wo n't work , because it wo n't bring profit to anyone - nor politics , nor media .
Hysteria sells .
It gives politician 's populism a base and possibility to be taken serious and voted in where you want to be .
For media , it sells newspapers .
And more or less , people do n't want to think , they want to react and act .
That 's how we are built , to response to * stereotypical * threat .
And if you point out that they can hurt lot of innocent people , that it can be treatible , and that you can actually try to forgive those people - it conflicts with their way how they 're reacting to threats .
It confuses them.It is easy to " kill " the threat than act responsible .
Like it or not , people 's minds do n't change so fast as we would like to , unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are trying to propose emotionally balanced and practical approach to problem.
Nice, but it won't work, because it won't bring profit to anyone - nor politics, nor media.
Hysteria sells.
It gives politician's populism a base and possibility to be taken serious and voted in where you want to be.
For media, it sells newspapers.
And more or less, people don't want to think, they want to react and act.
That's how we are built, to response to *stereotypical* threat.
And if you point out that they can hurt lot of innocent people, that it can be treatible, and that you can actually try to forgive those people - it conflicts with their way how they're reacting to threats.
It confuses them.It is easy to "kill" the threat than act responsible.
Like it or not, people's minds don't change so fast as we would like to, unfortunately.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110590</id>
	<title>NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course</title>
	<author>Smegly</author>
	<datestamp>1265967780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Censoring the Internet is:
A) A band aid solution that does not compare to tracking down and prosecuting the culprits, and
B) A powerful tool for political control.

Governments choose it because point A) means it is cheaper than actually solving crimes and point B) is all gravy for controlling an unruly population.<br> <br>
Censorship on the internet has nothing to do with stopping [insert favorite bogyman here]. For example: If Governments of the world really really cared about Child porn, there is no way in hell they would subscribe to TRIPS, GATS and other trade agreements that push so fervently for expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights worldwide. The majority of Child porn comes from poor developing countries - called "Source Country" exploitation. Many research and commissions inquires have overwhelmingly [References below] found these trade agreements severely disadvantage developing countries. Basically it guarantees keeping poor countries poor by denying them the same abilities to develop as the first world countries once enjoyed (refs below) . <br>
Do we see your government moving to solve this major worldwide source of child porn? No of course not - they are too busy <a href="http://www.michaelgeist.ca/tags/anti-counterfeiting+trade+agreement" title="michaelgeist.ca" rel="nofollow">negotiating ACTA</a> [michaelgeist.ca] in the backrooms. Child porn is just another bogyman to push through controls on the internet - and as a result your going to get worse IP restriction AND internet censorship == the complete opposite of actually solving the child porn problem (and the closely related human trafficking, and poverty, starvation...).  It could be said: If you support internet censorship then your also supporting the continuation of child porn... I know of no other place where we can debate and call into question/try to pressure our leaders to answer questions about draconian restrictions on the third world like ACTA will impose.
<br> <br>
References (of many) you can find on the internet linking IP laws and trade agreements to continuing poverty of the developing world:<p><div class="quote"><p>The GATS and TRIPS are both examples of rich countries investing their most vigorous negotiating efforts on agendas where the gains will accrue overwhelmingly to companies located in rich countries. They are examples of a one-size-fits-all approach being imposed and, most strikingly, of rich countries now pulling up the ladder, trying to deny developing countries the very policy options that rich countries used to manage their own economic development.</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.cid.org.nz/advocacy/Phil\_Twyford\_-\_CID\_Trade\_Forum.pdf" title="cid.org.nz" rel="nofollow">http://www.cid.org.nz/advocacy/Phil\_Twyford\_-\_CID\_Trade\_Forum.pdf</a> [cid.org.nz] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Commission on Intellectual Property Rights declared the internationally-mandated expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights unlikely to generate significant benefits for most developing countries and likely to impose costs, such as higher priced medicines or seeds. This makes poverty reduction more difficult. The intensively researched, 180-page report is entitled Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. It is the culmination of much study and follows on more than a dozen meetings and workshops, 17 working papers, an exhaustive literature review of the field, visits to several developed and developing nations and a major conference. The report makes some 50 recommendations aimed at aligning IP protection with the goal of reducing poverty in developing nations. Topics include IP and health; agriculture; traditional knowledge; copyrights, software and the Internet; and the role of WTO and WIPO in advancing developing country interests. The Commission is an independent international body made up of Commissioners from both developed and developing countries with expertise in science, law, ethics and economics. The Commissioners come from industry, government and academia* (see list of Commissioners below). "Developed countries often proceed on the assumption that what is good for them is likely to be good for developing countries," said Professor John Barton, Commission Chair and George E. Osborne Professor of Law, Stanford University. "But, in the case of developing countries, more and stronger protection is not necessarily better. Developing countries should not be encouraged or coerced into adopting stronger IP rights without regard to the impact this has on their development and poor people. They should be allowed to adopt appropriate rights regimes, not necessarily the most protective ones."</p></div><p> <a href="http://www.biotech-info.net/independent\_commission.html" title="biotech-info.net" rel="nofollow">http://www.biotech-info.net/independent\_commission.html</a> [biotech-info.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Censoring the Internet is : A ) A band aid solution that does not compare to tracking down and prosecuting the culprits , and B ) A powerful tool for political control .
Governments choose it because point A ) means it is cheaper than actually solving crimes and point B ) is all gravy for controlling an unruly population .
Censorship on the internet has nothing to do with stopping [ insert favorite bogyman here ] .
For example : If Governments of the world really really cared about Child porn , there is no way in hell they would subscribe to TRIPS , GATS and other trade agreements that push so fervently for expansion of intellectual property ( IP ) rights worldwide .
The majority of Child porn comes from poor developing countries - called " Source Country " exploitation .
Many research and commissions inquires have overwhelmingly [ References below ] found these trade agreements severely disadvantage developing countries .
Basically it guarantees keeping poor countries poor by denying them the same abilities to develop as the first world countries once enjoyed ( refs below ) .
Do we see your government moving to solve this major worldwide source of child porn ?
No of course not - they are too busy negotiating ACTA [ michaelgeist.ca ] in the backrooms .
Child porn is just another bogyman to push through controls on the internet - and as a result your going to get worse IP restriction AND internet censorship = = the complete opposite of actually solving the child porn problem ( and the closely related human trafficking , and poverty , starvation... ) .
It could be said : If you support internet censorship then your also supporting the continuation of child porn... I know of no other place where we can debate and call into question/try to pressure our leaders to answer questions about draconian restrictions on the third world like ACTA will impose .
References ( of many ) you can find on the internet linking IP laws and trade agreements to continuing poverty of the developing world : The GATS and TRIPS are both examples of rich countries investing their most vigorous negotiating efforts on agendas where the gains will accrue overwhelmingly to companies located in rich countries .
They are examples of a one-size-fits-all approach being imposed and , most strikingly , of rich countries now pulling up the ladder , trying to deny developing countries the very policy options that rich countries used to manage their own economic development .
http : //www.cid.org.nz/advocacy/Phil \ _Twyford \ _- \ _CID \ _Trade \ _Forum.pdf [ cid.org.nz ] Commission on Intellectual Property Rights declared the internationally-mandated expansion of intellectual property ( IP ) rights unlikely to generate significant benefits for most developing countries and likely to impose costs , such as higher priced medicines or seeds .
This makes poverty reduction more difficult .
The intensively researched , 180-page report is entitled Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy .
It is the culmination of much study and follows on more than a dozen meetings and workshops , 17 working papers , an exhaustive literature review of the field , visits to several developed and developing nations and a major conference .
The report makes some 50 recommendations aimed at aligning IP protection with the goal of reducing poverty in developing nations .
Topics include IP and health ; agriculture ; traditional knowledge ; copyrights , software and the Internet ; and the role of WTO and WIPO in advancing developing country interests .
The Commission is an independent international body made up of Commissioners from both developed and developing countries with expertise in science , law , ethics and economics .
The Commissioners come from industry , government and academia * ( see list of Commissioners below ) .
" Developed countries often proceed on the assumption that what is good for them is likely to be good for developing countries , " said Professor John Barton , Commission Chair and George E. Osborne Professor of Law , Stanford University .
" But , in the case of developing countries , more and stronger protection is not necessarily better .
Developing countries should not be encouraged or coerced into adopting stronger IP rights without regard to the impact this has on their development and poor people .
They should be allowed to adopt appropriate rights regimes , not necessarily the most protective ones .
" http : //www.biotech-info.net/independent \ _commission.html [ biotech-info.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Censoring the Internet is:
A) A band aid solution that does not compare to tracking down and prosecuting the culprits, and
B) A powerful tool for political control.
Governments choose it because point A) means it is cheaper than actually solving crimes and point B) is all gravy for controlling an unruly population.
Censorship on the internet has nothing to do with stopping [insert favorite bogyman here].
For example: If Governments of the world really really cared about Child porn, there is no way in hell they would subscribe to TRIPS, GATS and other trade agreements that push so fervently for expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights worldwide.
The majority of Child porn comes from poor developing countries - called "Source Country" exploitation.
Many research and commissions inquires have overwhelmingly [References below] found these trade agreements severely disadvantage developing countries.
Basically it guarantees keeping poor countries poor by denying them the same abilities to develop as the first world countries once enjoyed (refs below) .
Do we see your government moving to solve this major worldwide source of child porn?
No of course not - they are too busy negotiating ACTA [michaelgeist.ca] in the backrooms.
Child porn is just another bogyman to push through controls on the internet - and as a result your going to get worse IP restriction AND internet censorship == the complete opposite of actually solving the child porn problem (and the closely related human trafficking, and poverty, starvation...).
It could be said: If you support internet censorship then your also supporting the continuation of child porn... I know of no other place where we can debate and call into question/try to pressure our leaders to answer questions about draconian restrictions on the third world like ACTA will impose.
References (of many) you can find on the internet linking IP laws and trade agreements to continuing poverty of the developing world:The GATS and TRIPS are both examples of rich countries investing their most vigorous negotiating efforts on agendas where the gains will accrue overwhelmingly to companies located in rich countries.
They are examples of a one-size-fits-all approach being imposed and, most strikingly, of rich countries now pulling up the ladder, trying to deny developing countries the very policy options that rich countries used to manage their own economic development.
http://www.cid.org.nz/advocacy/Phil\_Twyford\_-\_CID\_Trade\_Forum.pdf [cid.org.nz] Commission on Intellectual Property Rights declared the internationally-mandated expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights unlikely to generate significant benefits for most developing countries and likely to impose costs, such as higher priced medicines or seeds.
This makes poverty reduction more difficult.
The intensively researched, 180-page report is entitled Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy.
It is the culmination of much study and follows on more than a dozen meetings and workshops, 17 working papers, an exhaustive literature review of the field, visits to several developed and developing nations and a major conference.
The report makes some 50 recommendations aimed at aligning IP protection with the goal of reducing poverty in developing nations.
Topics include IP and health; agriculture; traditional knowledge; copyrights, software and the Internet; and the role of WTO and WIPO in advancing developing country interests.
The Commission is an independent international body made up of Commissioners from both developed and developing countries with expertise in science, law, ethics and economics.
The Commissioners come from industry, government and academia* (see list of Commissioners below).
"Developed countries often proceed on the assumption that what is good for them is likely to be good for developing countries," said Professor John Barton, Commission Chair and George E. Osborne Professor of Law, Stanford University.
"But, in the case of developing countries, more and stronger protection is not necessarily better.
Developing countries should not be encouraged or coerced into adopting stronger IP rights without regard to the impact this has on their development and poor people.
They should be allowed to adopt appropriate rights regimes, not necessarily the most protective ones.
" http://www.biotech-info.net/independent\_commission.html [biotech-info.net]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110518</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110518</id>
	<title>Can't we all just get along?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The UK and AUS are doing this so it looks like Germany in 41</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UK and AUS are doing this so it looks like Germany in 41</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UK and AUS are doing this so it looks like Germany in 41</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111946</id>
	<title>Re:Moving on to the next boogieman?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265984820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; First, there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal.</p><p>Different governments define it differently.  In the USA drawings are never child pornography (though they may be obscenity).  In Sweden and several other countries they can be.  Thus your tenacle porn hentai may be legal in New York but get you busted in Stockholm.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; First , there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal.Different governments define it differently .
In the USA drawings are never child pornography ( though they may be obscenity ) .
In Sweden and several other countries they can be .
Thus your tenacle porn hentai may be legal in New York but get you busted in Stockholm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; First, there is NO country on this planet where child porn is legal.Different governments define it differently.
In the USA drawings are never child pornography (though they may be obscenity).
In Sweden and several other countries they can be.
Thus your tenacle porn hentai may be legal in New York but get you busted in Stockholm.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31115052</id>
	<title>Re:This will not be effective at all</title>
	<author>kangsterizer</author>
	<datestamp>1265998200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of passing these laws is not to take care of child porn, only to have more control over the internet. In fact, one could say, child porn is not relevant here.<br>It's just an argument used to pass the law in, as the other reasons would cause people to refuse the law.</p><p>If you refuse a law that is "against child porn", they will ask you, "so you are for child porn"? and start spamming you about how their law will protect childrens, so that your arguments are left unheard, at best you'll be remembered as a "pro child porn" cause that's what media will find as subject that "shock" the people and thus given them view and moneys (which isn't really good uh)</p><p>human control, easy as 123. :</p><p>In Slashdot language:</p><p>1 - propose a freedom-killing law, mentioning it's for the children's best interest<br>2 - report anyone complaining as child molester, child porn addict<br>3 - ???<br>4 - profit of your control over the population</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of passing these laws is not to take care of child porn , only to have more control over the internet .
In fact , one could say , child porn is not relevant here.It 's just an argument used to pass the law in , as the other reasons would cause people to refuse the law.If you refuse a law that is " against child porn " , they will ask you , " so you are for child porn " ?
and start spamming you about how their law will protect childrens , so that your arguments are left unheard , at best you 'll be remembered as a " pro child porn " cause that 's what media will find as subject that " shock " the people and thus given them view and moneys ( which is n't really good uh ) human control , easy as 123. : In Slashdot language : 1 - propose a freedom-killing law , mentioning it 's for the children 's best interest2 - report anyone complaining as child molester , child porn addict3 - ? ?
? 4 - profit of your control over the population</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of passing these laws is not to take care of child porn, only to have more control over the internet.
In fact, one could say, child porn is not relevant here.It's just an argument used to pass the law in, as the other reasons would cause people to refuse the law.If you refuse a law that is "against child porn", they will ask you, "so you are for child porn"?
and start spamming you about how their law will protect childrens, so that your arguments are left unheard, at best you'll be remembered as a "pro child porn" cause that's what media will find as subject that "shock" the people and thus given them view and moneys (which isn't really good uh)human control, easy as 123. :In Slashdot language:1 - propose a freedom-killing law, mentioning it's for the children's best interest2 - report anyone complaining as child molester, child porn addict3 - ??
?4 - profit of your control over the population</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112862</id>
	<title>Re:I don't support pedoes, but...</title>
	<author>ElectricTurtle</author>
	<datestamp>1265989560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For all the mods without brains, this isn't a troll post, if you read the GP you'd see he's using the GP's words and essentially replacing every mention of 'pedo' with 'homo' to expose the faultiness of the reasoning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For all the mods without brains , this is n't a troll post , if you read the GP you 'd see he 's using the GP 's words and essentially replacing every mention of 'pedo ' with 'homo ' to expose the faultiness of the reasoning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all the mods without brains, this isn't a troll post, if you read the GP you'd see he's using the GP's words and essentially replacing every mention of 'pedo' with 'homo' to expose the faultiness of the reasoning.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111126</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112080</id>
	<title>Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course</title>
	<author>Smegly</author>
	<datestamp>1265985600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Woosh!  You really have a simple world view going on there!<p><div class="quote"><p>a) The only way for us to stop child porn is to economically prop up every country in need, at our great, great expense</p></div><p>It's not about propping up. It is about giving third world countries the same opportunity to develop that we had. Do you the the good old US of A would have progressed if it had to pay top Pound for seeds, medicine, steam engines and any other modern technology for the day, all the while not being able to produce these things for themselves due to English "IP" Laws.  I think not, and there is plenty of research out there to back it up. The only "expense" your talking about it losing out on profits from exploitation.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>b) Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties in the vain, completely unfounded hope that it will inspires child pornographers to pack up and go home.</p></div><p>double . You really dont get it: Human Trafficking and the closely related child porn originate in developing countries... to use your simple world view: That is its home. Any policy to help the third world develop is an Anti-child porn stance. If you bothered to check the references you would see that all reports show that the "positives" you mention are all for companies based in first world countries, at the expense of the developing countries. What your really saying is: "Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties <b>for our companies</b>. Better to pursue exploitative profits at the expense of the third world than subscribe to treaties that foster third world sustainable development.". Bravo, you effectively supporting the continuation of child exploitation, including pornography.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Woosh !
You really have a simple world view going on there ! a ) The only way for us to stop child porn is to economically prop up every country in need , at our great , great expenseIt 's not about propping up .
It is about giving third world countries the same opportunity to develop that we had .
Do you the the good old US of A would have progressed if it had to pay top Pound for seeds , medicine , steam engines and any other modern technology for the day , all the while not being able to produce these things for themselves due to English " IP " Laws .
I think not , and there is plenty of research out there to back it up .
The only " expense " your talking about it losing out on profits from exploitation.b ) Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties in the vain , completely unfounded hope that it will inspires child pornographers to pack up and go home.double .
You really dont get it : Human Trafficking and the closely related child porn originate in developing countries... to use your simple world view : That is its home .
Any policy to help the third world develop is an Anti-child porn stance .
If you bothered to check the references you would see that all reports show that the " positives " you mention are all for companies based in first world countries , at the expense of the developing countries .
What your really saying is : " Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties for our companies .
Better to pursue exploitative profits at the expense of the third world than subscribe to treaties that foster third world sustainable development. " .
Bravo , you effectively supporting the continuation of child exploitation , including pornography .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Woosh!
You really have a simple world view going on there!a) The only way for us to stop child porn is to economically prop up every country in need, at our great, great expenseIt's not about propping up.
It is about giving third world countries the same opportunity to develop that we had.
Do you the the good old US of A would have progressed if it had to pay top Pound for seeds, medicine, steam engines and any other modern technology for the day, all the while not being able to produce these things for themselves due to English "IP" Laws.
I think not, and there is plenty of research out there to back it up.
The only "expense" your talking about it losing out on profits from exploitation.b) Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties in the vain, completely unfounded hope that it will inspires child pornographers to pack up and go home.double .
You really dont get it: Human Trafficking and the closely related child porn originate in developing countries... to use your simple world view: That is its home.
Any policy to help the third world develop is an Anti-child porn stance.
If you bothered to check the references you would see that all reports show that the "positives" you mention are all for companies based in first world countries, at the expense of the developing countries.
What your really saying is: "Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties for our companies.
Better to pursue exploitative profits at the expense of the third world than subscribe to treaties that foster third world sustainable development.".
Bravo, you effectively supporting the continuation of child exploitation, including pornography.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110608</id>
	<title>Qu'ils mangent de la brioche</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265968080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As an Australian, dare I say I'm waiting with bated breath. The French dumping that section wouldn't help our cause, but passing it would hurt it - the Aus govt is already looking for rationalisation and "me too!" works for voters here.</p><p>The whole bureaucracy we have to put up with in these times is far worse when they attempt this bullshit to lead attention away from false promises and actual governmental improvement. Fuck the system basically, especially when there's no history of revolution over here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As an Australian , dare I say I 'm waiting with bated breath .
The French dumping that section would n't help our cause , but passing it would hurt it - the Aus govt is already looking for rationalisation and " me too !
" works for voters here.The whole bureaucracy we have to put up with in these times is far worse when they attempt this bullshit to lead attention away from false promises and actual governmental improvement .
Fuck the system basically , especially when there 's no history of revolution over here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As an Australian, dare I say I'm waiting with bated breath.
The French dumping that section wouldn't help our cause, but passing it would hurt it - the Aus govt is already looking for rationalisation and "me too!
" works for voters here.The whole bureaucracy we have to put up with in these times is far worse when they attempt this bullshit to lead attention away from false promises and actual governmental improvement.
Fuck the system basically, especially when there's no history of revolution over here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111082</id>
	<title>Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1265975040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry to post off-topic, but this one was a fork of the topic in the first place.</p><p>I have to say much of what you say is well said.  However, if you want to be taken for an educated person, please learn the difference between "your" and "you're."  In fact, if you can't keep them straight, avoid confusion entirely by never using "you're" at all and simply write "you are" and then the difference will always be apparent.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry to post off-topic , but this one was a fork of the topic in the first place.I have to say much of what you say is well said .
However , if you want to be taken for an educated person , please learn the difference between " your " and " you 're .
" In fact , if you ca n't keep them straight , avoid confusion entirely by never using " you 're " at all and simply write " you are " and then the difference will always be apparent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry to post off-topic, but this one was a fork of the topic in the first place.I have to say much of what you say is well said.
However, if you want to be taken for an educated person, please learn the difference between "your" and "you're.
"  In fact, if you can't keep them straight, avoid confusion entirely by never using "you're" at all and simply write "you are" and then the difference will always be apparent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110644</id>
	<title>In Germany a similar law is defacto rejected</title>
	<author>saibot834</author>
	<datestamp>1265968380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Germany, a law was passed called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugangserschwerungsgesetz" title="wikipedia.org">Zugangserschwerungsgesetz</a> [wikipedia.org]. It said the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal\_Criminal\_Police\_Office\_(Germany)" title="wikipedia.org">Federal Criminal Police Office</a> [wikipedia.org] delivers secret list of blocked domains to the ISPs. After the elections in 2009 the government changed and even though the law has come into effect, the new coalition prevented the feds to give out the list. So de facto, Zugangserschwerungsgesetz has been rejected now.</p><p>This is partially the success of the German Pirate Party, which both thrived because of this law proposal (membership <a href="http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/Datei:Mitgliederentwicklung.png" title="piratenpartei.de">decupled</a> [piratenpartei.de] in a few months) and forced a public discussion about this law (otherwise it'd just be rubber-stamped: "oh, this law is against kiddie porn. Good!"). It astonished me that the PP actually succeeded to bring common sense into the debate, because politicians often tend to turn of their brain when they hear "kiddie porn". Partially the success was also due to an online petition which had 134,000 signatures (which made it by far the most successful petition in German history).</p><p>It is also doubtful that the Zugangserschwerungsgesetz will pass German's highest court, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesverfassungsgericht" title="wikipedia.org">Federal Constitutional Court</a> [wikipedia.org], which in the past has proven to value human rights (such as <a href="https://www.btg-bestellservice.de/pdf/80201000.pdf" title="btg-bestellservice.de">article 5</a> [btg-bestellservice.de] of Germany's constitution) very highly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Germany , a law was passed called Zugangserschwerungsgesetz [ wikipedia.org ] .
It said the Federal Criminal Police Office [ wikipedia.org ] delivers secret list of blocked domains to the ISPs .
After the elections in 2009 the government changed and even though the law has come into effect , the new coalition prevented the feds to give out the list .
So de facto , Zugangserschwerungsgesetz has been rejected now.This is partially the success of the German Pirate Party , which both thrived because of this law proposal ( membership decupled [ piratenpartei.de ] in a few months ) and forced a public discussion about this law ( otherwise it 'd just be rubber-stamped : " oh , this law is against kiddie porn .
Good ! " ) . It astonished me that the PP actually succeeded to bring common sense into the debate , because politicians often tend to turn of their brain when they hear " kiddie porn " .
Partially the success was also due to an online petition which had 134,000 signatures ( which made it by far the most successful petition in German history ) .It is also doubtful that the Zugangserschwerungsgesetz will pass German 's highest court , the Federal Constitutional Court [ wikipedia.org ] , which in the past has proven to value human rights ( such as article 5 [ btg-bestellservice.de ] of Germany 's constitution ) very highly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Germany, a law was passed called Zugangserschwerungsgesetz [wikipedia.org].
It said the Federal Criminal Police Office [wikipedia.org] delivers secret list of blocked domains to the ISPs.
After the elections in 2009 the government changed and even though the law has come into effect, the new coalition prevented the feds to give out the list.
So de facto, Zugangserschwerungsgesetz has been rejected now.This is partially the success of the German Pirate Party, which both thrived because of this law proposal (membership decupled [piratenpartei.de] in a few months) and forced a public discussion about this law (otherwise it'd just be rubber-stamped: "oh, this law is against kiddie porn.
Good!"). It astonished me that the PP actually succeeded to bring common sense into the debate, because politicians often tend to turn of their brain when they hear "kiddie porn".
Partially the success was also due to an online petition which had 134,000 signatures (which made it by far the most successful petition in German history).It is also doubtful that the Zugangserschwerungsgesetz will pass German's highest court, the Federal Constitutional Court [wikipedia.org], which in the past has proven to value human rights (such as article 5 [btg-bestellservice.de] of Germany's constitution) very highly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110962</id>
	<title>China</title>
	<author>ebonum</author>
	<datestamp>1265973180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>China holds that their internet censorship follows international norms.  Sadly, France is proving them correct.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>China holds that their internet censorship follows international norms .
Sadly , France is proving them correct .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>China holds that their internet censorship follows international norms.
Sadly, France is proving them correct.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31125366</id>
	<title>Re:Child pornography? Does it exist?</title>
	<author>shnull</author>
	<datestamp>1266054300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i 2n, 3r and 4th that. Child pornography as such is not available on the simple internet. It is a highly specialized underground network which cannot be accessed without authorization of one of the sociopaths that run it. That is, ofcourse, unless you count movies of 40 year old milfs with pigtails getting drilled as 'child'-pornography ?

It's just another way to trick the dumb mass into their own dismissal of their right to privacy. It worried me greatly that such a thing is actually considered in European countries. I know we have a special unit that occupies itself with cybercrime here but as far as i know, other than sites that are blacklisted, no censorship exists on the internet in Belgium<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... and frankly, i (and we) would very much like to keep it that way. Withholding information from your citizens in the digital age is holding them back in their development.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i 2n , 3r and 4th that .
Child pornography as such is not available on the simple internet .
It is a highly specialized underground network which can not be accessed without authorization of one of the sociopaths that run it .
That is , ofcourse , unless you count movies of 40 year old milfs with pigtails getting drilled as 'child'-pornography ?
It 's just another way to trick the dumb mass into their own dismissal of their right to privacy .
It worried me greatly that such a thing is actually considered in European countries .
I know we have a special unit that occupies itself with cybercrime here but as far as i know , other than sites that are blacklisted , no censorship exists on the internet in Belgium ... and frankly , i ( and we ) would very much like to keep it that way .
Withholding information from your citizens in the digital age is holding them back in their development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i 2n, 3r and 4th that.
Child pornography as such is not available on the simple internet.
It is a highly specialized underground network which cannot be accessed without authorization of one of the sociopaths that run it.
That is, ofcourse, unless you count movies of 40 year old milfs with pigtails getting drilled as 'child'-pornography ?
It's just another way to trick the dumb mass into their own dismissal of their right to privacy.
It worried me greatly that such a thing is actually considered in European countries.
I know we have a special unit that occupies itself with cybercrime here but as far as i know, other than sites that are blacklisted, no censorship exists on the internet in Belgium ... and frankly, i (and we) would very much like to keep it that way.
Withholding information from your citizens in the digital age is holding them back in their development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111572</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110554</id>
	<title>Won't someone think of the downloaders?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265967540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"French lawmakers will vote next Tuesday on a proposal to filter Internet traffic."</p><p>Don't shoot! We surrender.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" French lawmakers will vote next Tuesday on a proposal to filter Internet traffic .
" Do n't shoot !
We surrender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"French lawmakers will vote next Tuesday on a proposal to filter Internet traffic.
"Don't shoot!
We surrender.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111046</id>
	<title>Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265974320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's cute how you hijacked the issue to try and prop-up your favorite cause, but c'mon<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. really?  You're going to try and argue that an abolition of IP laws would eliminate child pornography?  Let's not be silly here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's cute how you hijacked the issue to try and prop-up your favorite cause , but c'mon .. really ? You 're going to try and argue that an abolition of IP laws would eliminate child pornography ?
Let 's not be silly here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's cute how you hijacked the issue to try and prop-up your favorite cause, but c'mon .. really?  You're going to try and argue that an abolition of IP laws would eliminate child pornography?
Let's not be silly here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110590</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111422</id>
	<title>Re:NOT and NEVER WAS about Child porn, of course</title>
	<author>TheVelvetFlamebait</author>
	<datestamp>1265979360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your argument makes no sense.</p><blockquote><div><p>Censorship on the internet has nothing to do with stopping [insert favorite bogyman here]. For example: If Governments of the world really really cared about Child porn, there is no way in hell they would subscribe to TRIPS, GATS and other trade agreements that push so fervently for expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights worldwide. The majority of Child porn comes from poor developing countries - called "Source Country" exploitation. Many research and commissions inquires have overwhelmingly [References below] found these trade agreements severely disadvantage developing countries. Basically it guarantees keeping poor countries poor by denying them the same abilities to develop as the first world countries once enjoyed (refs below)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div></blockquote><p>Right, because:</p><p>a) The only way for us to stop child porn is to economically prop up every country in need, at our great, great expense, and<br>b) Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties in the vain, completely unfounded hope that it will inspires child pornographers to pack up and go home.</p><p>I mean, it's like saying if governments cared about child porn, then they would kill all the children.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your argument makes no sense.Censorship on the internet has nothing to do with stopping [ insert favorite bogyman here ] .
For example : If Governments of the world really really cared about Child porn , there is no way in hell they would subscribe to TRIPS , GATS and other trade agreements that push so fervently for expansion of intellectual property ( IP ) rights worldwide .
The majority of Child porn comes from poor developing countries - called " Source Country " exploitation .
Many research and commissions inquires have overwhelmingly [ References below ] found these trade agreements severely disadvantage developing countries .
Basically it guarantees keeping poor countries poor by denying them the same abilities to develop as the first world countries once enjoyed ( refs below ) .Right , because : a ) The only way for us to stop child porn is to economically prop up every country in need , at our great , great expense , andb ) Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties in the vain , completely unfounded hope that it will inspires child pornographers to pack up and go home.I mean , it 's like saying if governments cared about child porn , then they would kill all the children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your argument makes no sense.Censorship on the internet has nothing to do with stopping [insert favorite bogyman here].
For example: If Governments of the world really really cared about Child porn, there is no way in hell they would subscribe to TRIPS, GATS and other trade agreements that push so fervently for expansion of intellectual property (IP) rights worldwide.
The majority of Child porn comes from poor developing countries - called "Source Country" exploitation.
Many research and commissions inquires have overwhelmingly [References below] found these trade agreements severely disadvantage developing countries.
Basically it guarantees keeping poor countries poor by denying them the same abilities to develop as the first world countries once enjoyed (refs below) .Right, because:a) The only way for us to stop child porn is to economically prop up every country in need, at our great, great expense, andb) Governments should reject the wealth of positives about these treaties in the vain, completely unfounded hope that it will inspires child pornographers to pack up and go home.I mean, it's like saying if governments cared about child porn, then they would kill all the children.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110590</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31115088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31125366
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31113744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112898
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111792
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111654
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31115052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31114758
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111944
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111548
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111626
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110652
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110896
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31113950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111470
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111946
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111604
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112678
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111738
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31116490
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111572
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110594
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_2346225_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31125388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110590
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110894
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31114758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111470
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111636
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110594
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111572
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31125366
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31116490
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31115088
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110896
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111802
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111604
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111126
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112862
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111884
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31115052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110676
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111946
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111792
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111548
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111668
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111654
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110562
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110590
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111046
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112204
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111422
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112080
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31125388
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31110608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31113744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31112092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111944
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31113950
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_2346225.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_2346225.31111598
</commentlist>
</conversation>
