I really don't agree with the way Wfi have gone about this, or the black-and-white all-or-nothing attitude they have. But i think its really important that we don't argue at cross purposes, and that we do read what they've said carefully.

Of course beleiving in free speech doesn't mean you're against child safety or pro paedophillia, but i'm not sure they actually made that claim. When you have two independent beliefs they *can* sometimes come into conflict, and then you have to prioritise one ahead of the other. Its a case of choosing the lesser of two evils, or - possibly - the greater of two goods.

If you believe (Which i Do Not) that closing down those LJs she finds objectionable would save children from pedophilia, then it does make sense to say that we have to choose between Freedom of Speech and child safety.

Its that belief that is really their flaw (imo), and the point i wish we could drive home is that eliminating these sites has done nothing to help (has, infact, hindered) the efforts to stop paedophilia.

They've said enough things that are insulting, ojectionable, and downright wrong for us to argue with, i'm worried that we'll confuse the issue by arguing with things they didn't say.