Stallman's view on uncensored child porn in schools

[Snit]

Sigh... the topic seems to not go away. People keep harping on it... so
here is the summary to make it easy to point to"

Some specific quotes from Stallman:
-----
I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms
children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based
on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by
parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby
is maturing.
-----
If people are seriously concerned not to let children have
sex in making porn films, they could use the approach that
has succesfully eliminated cruelty to animals in films. You
have seen the statements certifying that "no animals were
harmed in making this film." There could be a similar
certification that "no minors had sex or were nude with
adults in making this film."
-----
The way to protect children from being used to make porn is
to punish those who are involved in the distribution business
together with those who make porn using real children.
-----
When making pornography involves real abuse of real children,
those who distribute it under a business relationship with
the abusers arguably participate in the abuse. They could be
prosecuted for doing so. However, that does not excuse
censorship. No matter how disgusting published works might
be, censorship is more disgusting.
-----
Internet filtering in schools blocks access to educational
materials. While that article focuses on blockage of the
educational materials that prudes would admit, porn is also
very important for education. Blocking adolescents’ access to
porn, or keeping them ignorant of sex in any way, is likely
to stunt their emotional growth and make them vulnerable to
mistakes that can hurt them badly.
-----

And my commentary:
-----
Stallman claimed that even acts he disagrees with (such as
"porn using real children" where he agrees there is "real
abuse of real children", and where those who engage in such
acts should be prosecuted), he is *still* against censoring
such material, saying, in terms of that very material "No
matter how disgusting published works might be, censorship is
more disgusting." Yes, he is in reference to that material
as the "published works". Elsewhere he says "Censorship laws
are more dangerous to a democratic society than any
pornography could ever be."

So, yes, Stallman considers even such material with "real
abuse of real children" and where those who commit such
things should be "prosecuted", to be - once they are released
- "published works" that should not be censored. This is
what *he* says. Such "published works" are just another form
of porn to him.

Now that is repulsive, but Stallman gets even more repulsive
when he says "porn is also very important for education.
Blocking adolescents’ access to porn, or keeping them
ignorant of sex in any way, is likely to stunt their
emotional growth and make them vulnerable to mistakes that
can hurt them badly."

I would love to think that he excludes *some* types of porn
from this (not that excluding just child porn from this would
take the repulsive nature of his claims away)... but when he
*specifically* says he finds censoring of child-porn "more
disgusting" than the child-porn itself, I think it is a
stretch to say there is any reasonable chance he has such an
exception he just has not talked about (in any quote I can
find, at least).

He makes it very, very clear that the thinks child porn wrong
to be made, but once made and published he is *still* against
the censoring of it. And he makes it clear he thinks it is
wrong to censor porn in public schools (at least with teens)
and that to limit such information (which he calls
"educational material" from kids is something he considers
harmful to them.

Stallman wants teens, in public schools, to have uncensored
access to porn... no restrictions. This is what he says.
And he clearly considers child porn to be a part of the porn
that should not be censored. This is what he says.
-----

If anyone wants to say I am lying here, there are a couple of options:

1) Show where the quote I attribute to Stallman are not really from him or
somehow twisted out of context.

2) Show where I am not just wrong about my analysis but where such an error
would be reasonably called a "lie".

For the first, I can (and have) pointed to the exact pages on Stallman's own
site where those quotes come from. I am happy to do so again if asked.
For the second, an error in my commentary has to be pointed out (none has
been and I doubt any will be) and that error has to be shown to be not just
an error but a purposeful lie... and that is not possible given how I am not
doing so.

But I welcome those that try to defend the repulsive Stallman to try. So
far the only "attempt" has been to make accusations of dishonesty without
showing *any* signs of such.


--
🙈🙉🙊