In fact, the US government might be one of the parties I censor my communication with, though I hadn't fully considered it in my thought experiment.

In such a situation requiring moral judgement, having more options is always better, and one option when dealing with sensitive information is to keep it private. The 'keep it private' option should be judged in the context of the facts at hand, not automatically and universally ruled out ahead of time on the basis that it is 'self-censorship'.

In fact, not saying anything is potentially as much an act of freedom as speaking out. It's not always the correct choice, but should always be an available one.

The US is fascist because it appeals to civic duty in an effort to prevent sensitive information from reaching parties who may use it to inflict death (for example) to US citizens? In other words, appeal, as in 'Please?' Oh, the oppression.

A simple thought experiment: you are a nuclear engineer and are privy to some information not widely known in the literature or on the internet that, in the wrong hands, could cause great harm. Therefore, as an act of prudence, you keep it to yourself/your colleagues. Congratulations, you just 'censored' yourself. A word, like 'nuclear', which causes a Pavlovian response in a large percentage of the population, even on Slashdot.

Civic Duty. Prudence. Not bad ideas. It's the expansion of this idea to absurd lengths that's the real problem.

If a 30 year old male exposes himself in public, he is liable to get arrested.

If a 30 year old male shows pornography, even softcore, to a child, he is likewise
liable to get arrested.

If a 30 year old male is watching a gang rape (simulated or not) at a public/university
library in full view of the public, is he not equally guilty? After all, children could
be walking by. Even if a 29 year old female walks by, is she not being harassed?

Sure, the visual image is not directed at her, but the same could be said about a male
who has passively disrobed (for no apparent reason).

Sure, she can just 'not look at it' but, likewise, the same could be said if the male was exposed.

Sure, it's on a visual display device, and thus 'not real' but is sexual harassment no longer
sexual harassment if it is encoded electronically and THEN transmitted? What if the male was
viewing a digital version of HIMSELF? What about a picture of himself with an explicit
proclaimation to passers-by? How does this compare to the public viewing of the gang-rape?
Is this really worse/better for these passers-by? It must be acknowledged that monitors
-broadcast- visual information.

I would think the female would have a pretty good case, at least for sexual harassment.
Exposing in public someone to graphic XXX content, even unintentionally, should certainly
be viewed as worse than, say, parading around in a non-sexual but completely nude state.
VISUAL IMAGES are VISUAL IMAGES.

Unfortunately this sort of thing, to a greater or lesser extent, happens all the time.
I witnessed such an event today.

A plea: Regardless of your views on porn, can't all you public porn viewers just wait to
find someplace private? Get a virtual room, dammit!

Rex Butler