No, of course not. However, it isn't an excuse for censorship. It is an excuse for going after the people producing it, and monitoring those who consume it (in the USA, the FBI is the largest distributor of child porn, with the goal of arresting people who look at it, for instance). Also, there's a pretty huge difference between censoring all the pornography on the internet (which would inevitably include lots of non-pornographic content) and occasionally asking hosting companies to remove illegal content from their networks as part of legal action against the offending individuals.
Also, as an aside, I find it interesting that child porn tends to crop up in every single discussion of censoring the internet. It's something that pretty much everyone agrees is wrong, true, but it's not an argument for generalized censorship, any more than the existence of child abuse is an argument for putting sensors on every child in the world to see if they're being abused.
I recall reading it in an article about child porn a while back, and so don't have a citation off-hand. A bit of googling hasn't turned up that exact fact from any reputable source, although I have seen some other people mentioning it, along with quotes supporting the assertion (which I haven't been able to find the source of, strangely).
As early as 2007, the FBI did post links which claimed to be child porn as part of sting operations[1], and I remember reading about that in the past, so the fact might have gotten confused over time; it's also possible that I saw it in an article which I simply haven't been able to find. However, I'll retract that statement until I'm able to find a citation.
>> (in the USA, the FBI is the largest distributor of child porn, with the goal of arresting people who look at it, for instance)
> [citation needed]
> Really, I'm curious where you got this fact.
I don't know if the FBI is the largest distributor, but I'd be surprised if they weren't a major distributor.
Why? Because that's how such organizations typically work and even if you assume good will, it's pretty much the only way that they can attempt to deal with such crimes.
Very fair points, but all I was trying to state is that there is a boundary where most people agree the material should be watched. Where that boundary is happens to be at different locations for different people, but I think it's important to establish one. Hence, I just disagree with the parent that "any censorship at all" is a problem.
Also, as an aside, I find it interesting that child porn tends to crop up in every single discussion of censoring the internet. It's something that pretty much everyone agrees is wrong, true, but it's not an argument for generalized censorship, any more than the existence of child abuse is an argument for putting sensors on every child in the world to see if they're being abused.