Wikileaks and Child Pornography

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I've sort of been on the fence about this whole Wikileaks thing , so when I came across this , I didn't know exactly what to make of it .

It appears that Wiki hosts sites that have been banned , and some of those sites include child-pornography .


Wikileaks also cites freedom of speech when reproducing huge lists of banned websites including unredacted URLs of child pornography websites ...


and


Wikileaks host an article "An Insight Into Child Porn" , written by a "controversial source" who has spent "10 years inside the international child porn industry" .


Whether this is legit , or disinformation , I don't know . But I found it disturbing either way .

hurryupharry.org...
edit on 10-2-2011 by okbmd because: eta link




posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


I would love to look into this, but I won't simply due to the subject matter. I will however follow it here on ATS. I will strap on my BS Filter and hope the truth gets through. I have faith in a great deal of our members...



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Give me a break - it's OBVIOUSLY disinformation. It's totally uncorroborated and is a classic smear campaign.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


Yes , I did mention that in the OP . But we can't just claim it's disinfo without substantiating such a claim . If you have something to validate this , feel free to post it .

As for corroboration , there ARE links in the article , did you bother to check those out before posting ?

www.time.com...
edit on 10-2-2011 by okbmd because: eta



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

I could start a blog and make ridiculous claims about people & organizations, but that doesn't obligate people to PROVE that the claims aren't true. It doesn't work that way. It's the obligation of the accuser to PROVE that their claims are true, and that blogger hasn't done that.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


To the contrary , the article provided links , that you apparently didn't bother to check out .

The blogger claimed that Wikileaks hosted this article , and lo and behold , the article can be found on Wikileaks .Now , feel free to present something that would substantiate your claim that this is disinformation designed as a smear campaign .
edit on 10-2-2011 by okbmd because: removed content that could be construed as a violation of ATS T&C



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 03:20 PM
link   
hm.. this looks indeed as a classic example of smear campaign, and a poorly written one, while we are at it.

Wikileaks put a list of websites banned by government on the internet (something that should have been done long ago by the gov itself) and unsurprisingly, it contained child porn websites. Then it put an article from child porn industry insider on the web (quite an interesting read). And that somehow makes wikileaks attitude towards child pornography "very odd"?


I guess when those rape charges against Assange were not enough, it is time to bring out the big guns..
edit on 10/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

That's a VERY dangerous path you are going down there, and if you are so against that article, why the hell are you posting a link to it from ATS???

What does that say about you and your hypocrisy of claiming that information somehow makes Wikileaks "guilty" of supporting CP? If we followed your logic, that would make you guilty of the same thing, since you provided a link to it.

Further more, it is impossible to "validate" claims that people make that Wikileaks is providing full URL's to CP sites without risking legal prosecution. IMPOSSIBLE. So people can make all the claims they want about that, and they know most people won't "check" the validity themselves.

So claim away, but when you see all the information wikileaks.info mirrors contain, you'd be hard pressed NOT to find some controversial voices in that mess.

FINALLY, my "proof" that Wikileaks, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is most defintely NOT hosting links to CP is that NO ONE is arresting Julian Assange for CP violations.

Tell me, if they were doing that and breaking the CP laws, why is he being arrested for having consensual sex with 2 adult females? Hmm?
edit on 10-2-2011 by harrytuttle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by harrytuttle
FINALLY, my "proof" that Wikileaks, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is most defintely NOT hosting links to CP is that NO ONE is arresting Julian Assange for CP violations.

Tell me, if they were doing that and breaking the CP laws, why is he being arrested for having consensual sex with 2 adult females? Hmm?


That right there summed up what ran through my mind perfectly.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 



Further more, it is impossible to "validate" claims that people make that Wikileaks is providing full URL's to CP sites without risking legal prosecution.


BULLBUTTER . There is INDEED a page , ON WIKILEAKS that directs you to SEVERAL other pages ON WIKILEAKS , that lists HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS of URLs to CP sites .

IT IS THERE , I just saw it with my own eyes . So , stop saying it is impossible . It IS there !

I will not post a link here , but anyone who doesn't believe me can go to Wikileaks and see that I am telling the truth . It took me all of two minutes to find it .

As for why I made this thread , it is what we do here at ATS , we strive to uncover the truth . If you have a problem with that , fine . Just don't go implying that I had any other reasons for bringing this to the attention of the ATS community . Debate the topic , not me .

Your claims of disinfo and smear campaign are null and void .

The claims in the OP are true .



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

LOL - are you admitting here on ATS that you VERIFIED that even ONE of those links you observed really does go to a REAL CP website???

You do realize that by admitting that, you could put yourself into legal jeopardy, right?

So did you or did you not verify that those "purported" URLs do in fact go to a CP site?

Didn't think so.
(Like I said, unsupported, unverifiable claims)
edit on 10-2-2011 by harrytuttle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 



FINALLY, my "proof" that Wikileaks, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is most defintely NOT hosting links to CP is that NO ONE is arresting Julian Assange for CP violations.


You have not provided any such "proof" .

I stand by the claims in the OP . THE URLs to CP sites ARE POSTED ON WIKILEAKS.

I realize what a disappointment this will be to all the Wikileaks supporters on this site , but the proof is there .



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 

Proof is in the pudding dude, Wikileaks/Julian Assange is NOT being arrested, accused, nor prosecuted for breaking CP laws. None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

I can't provide links to events that haven't occurred. However YOU could post links to stories about Julian Assange being arrested for CP, but ONLY IF it actually occurred.

So until you do that, I'm right, and you are wrong.

Lastly, you may have seen a list of purported URLs, but unless you A) verify those links are real URL's and B) that they are for actual CP sites, you can not validate the accusations.

I could post a whole list of fake sites right here in this post that appear to be CP sites, but unless you actually go to them and see CP, I would just be making stuff up out of thin air.

(mods, don't worry, I won't do that to make my point
)
edit on 10-2-2011 by harrytuttle because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


Is that the best you have ?

You can't refute the OP , so you instead resort to this little game and try to shift the focus of the conversation ?

I'd be real careful with my choice of words , if I were you . I will not tolerate your nonsense and will not hesitate to alert the mods to your shenanigans .

Discuss the content of the OP , and stop trying to shift the discussion to me .



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


You realize that a web page is just a collection of data that can be modified at will by anyone who can log into the host and edit a new version of the page, right?

A particular page can have information regarding the FLU one day, and pictures of gray aliens cavorting with barnyard animals the next. The URL doesn't change. The name of the page doesn't change. It's not magic. Hell -- it's not even hard to do. All you have to do is find someone whose site is listed in an index somewhere, and talk them into editing it or giving you read / write permissions.

The problem with the whole CP angle is that no one in their right mind can even check to verify the information without risking prosecution. That fact alone makes the entire concept of "investigating" claims of CP impossible for anyone other then a dedicated and rigorously monitored information forensics team working professionally in law enforcement.

Links to websites prove nothing, in and of themselves, unfortunately. It's all digital hearsay.
edit on 10-2-2011 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
REMINDER:

You must abide by ATS T&C. Do not demand or ask anyone to go to any site that could get them in trouble with the law - and do not post those links here:



ATS Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

12e) Compliance With Laws: You agree to comply in all material respects with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations in connection with your activities under the Terms and Conditions of Use (and for members, the Additional Terms and Conditions of Membership).

16e.) Illicit Activity: Discussion of illicit activities, specifically the use of mind-altering drugs & substances, engaging in computer hacking, promoting criminal hate, discussing sexual relations with minors, and furtherance of financial schemes and scams are strictly forbidden. You will also not link to sites or online content that contains discussion or advocacy of such material. Any Post mentioning or advocating personal use of illicit mind-altering drugs will result in immediate account termination.


ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

Keep to the TOPIC not other members!
edit on February 10th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by harrytuttle
 


This thread is not about Assange being arrested or not being arrested . This thread is about the content of the OP .

I have verified the claims in the OP , by finding the URLs on Wikileaks .

DENY IGNORANCE .
edit on 10-2-2011 by okbmd because: removed potential T&C violation



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I happen to know who this mr X. is and so do many finns. He is an internet activist who published a list of banned sites in Finland that did not contain child pornography but were put on that list anyway. This activist got the whole filter thing removed and in the end his own site was put on that list even though he does not host any pornography. Many url's that were on the list were gay porn and some ridicilous ones such as a memorial page for a thai princess etc.

*SNIP*
 

MOD NOTE & EDIT:
As said above, do not be telling others to do illegal activities!
edit on February 10th 2011 by greeneyedleo because: (no reason given)


It's not illegal to find links to illegal material. Clicking them is
edit on 10/2/2011 by PsykoOps because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
www.majorsecretdisclosure.com

Links by themselves prove nothing.



posted on Feb, 10 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by okbmd
 


All you verified was that there was a list of URL’s, not that there was a list of URL’s to CP sites. As far as we know, those URL’s could be conspiracy theory blogs.

Claiming that they are CP sites is just propaganda. It’s actually very clever because you can’t verify those claims (legally) so you’re forced to take those claims at face value.

So no, you haven’t verified that the claims in the OP are true. If you did, well.. then you’re in big trouble





top topics
 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join