Decius wrote:
I think child porn is one of those cases. I tend to think about it in terms of privacy - the people depicted did not consent to being depicted and even possession of the images constitutes continued violation of their privacy. This view of the issue is somewhat inconsistent with how governments view the issue. Many people cast this in the terms you did - that freedom of speech is not absolute - so some kinds of speech can be regulated as long as we find them offensive. This is an unbounded (and in my view somewhat unprincipled) way of looking at the issue that opens the door to censorship of a great deal of speech. Viewing regulation of child porn through the prism of privacy creates a clear distinction with speech that is purely expressive, and it also raises questions about other kinds of privacy issues that I think ought to be raised, such as the case of the "starwars kid," but this is a huge digression.

This is an interesting approach, but I don't think it works as well as you think it will. So if I put up a "I hate Barney Frank" site, because I disagree with the politics and perspectives of Barney Frank, wouldn't Barney Frank have the ability to censor me for violation of his privacy? Especially if I was reporting on the daily activities of Barney Frank? Posting pictures of Barney Frank?

Seems like a dead end.

RE: ‘Anonymous’ Declares War on Australia Over Internet Filtering | Threat Level | Wired.com