On the censoring of Wikipedia over nude underaged girl photo...

It could well be that I don't grow up in the United States, or rather, under the liberal establishment in the United States; but I have always found the free-speech movement irksome and even worrisome.

It's not unusual for the ACLU or some such liberal outfits filing lawsuits or appeals for those defendants who, in some cases, are clearly in the wrong, but yet ACLU would defend for them, for the sole purpose of holding up the rights of the convicted, and again the commonsense or decency of protection the victims, particularly in violent crimes.

True, wrongful convictions are not unheard of in the past. And ACLU does serve a purpose. But in those cases, where there is absolutely no defense, with overwhelming evidence, and in some cases, even the defendants said they're themselves very guilty, ACLU would file appeals against all cries, oftentimes in the name of procedural misgivings.

The latest episode of censoring of Wikipedia from UK in an album cover that features a very nude of clearly under-aged girl, is a case in point. The whole point of argument against the censoring of Wikipedia due to the picture is the "legality" of the picture in question. The argument being which, if the picture is not deemed (or has not yet been deemed) as illegal, then the picture is good to be posted on the web.

The idea that the web is the ultimate frontier for the free-for-all, which contributes not only to the dissemination of knowledge, but also drastically in the exponential growth in child pornography, is simply too great a social ill to ignore. While some would condemn my attitude as puritanical, I see the liberal establishments like ACLU in irrational debates about obvious social evils, as irrational and irresponsible.

I grew up in Hong Kong. It's an interesting to grow up, before its sovereignty was returned to China. Back then, one gets to bask in all cultures, both western and deeply oriental. There was little to no censorship, but most everyone was guided by a traditional moral compass (not out of government censorship), and simply commonsense of an ordinary man. To me, this Wikipedia fiasco fails the decency-of-a-common-man test. If I were to decide, it'll be illegal.

And if that's the smoking gun that Washington Post and ACLU are looking for, then there you have it. That nude picture of the underaged girl should be taken down. I have no doubt in my mind.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have always considered myself fiscally conservative but social liberal, but those who argue for this Wikipedia fiasco never meausre up to my liberal view. To me, they are arguing for the argument sake. It's pitiful.