In the case of child pornography, you have effectively agreed to censor them by arresting them for their activity of “free speech”, but are insisting that the more effective preventative method,i.e. censorship,be off-limits on the basis that freedom of expression must be absolute,despite the fact that you just condoned arresting them for the same action. That is an inconsistent position, just as it would be inconsistent to say it is always wrong to hurt others,yet be in favor of self defense.

I was always a fan of your research into anti-competitive practices,not necessarily your logical process.
However, rms has impressed me for his contribution of gnu software, the gpl, and his well-thought-out logically consistent opinions on software and freedom. If he can’t distance himself clearly from allowing anonymous people exploiting children via pornography on the web, in a logically consistent way, then it would not only remove any influence he hopes to have when he opens his mouth on social or moral issues,he would become a liability as a vocal defender for free software or freedom.

You are the one who exposed Microsoft use of “tech evangelists”(disinformation specialists) to the general public.You know this is an information war,and you saw how the apparent disinformation specialist worked the “free software icon supports child pornography” angle into a debate that had nothing to do with it.

I’m personally against censorship and I always stood behind this principle. Any form of censorship is a power game.

Secondly,if rms wants to be a political figure,he should really clarify that he is against exploitation of children via pornography,or he will have zero credibility on the public stage.(note the previous rss article on Ubuntu where an apparent disinformation specialist wrote in and implied that rms supported child pornography.)