I’m in the mood for some fun, angry AC.

So, let’s answer your question.

Child porn displayed as photographs and video is universally agreed upon to depict a horrid crime that has caused a child irreparable damage and which may cause similar damage to another child as it may well cause a true pedophile to act out with a child. Regardless of the presence of a picture of the the Bible, you go pick your own translation, the pictures are portraying the commission of an actual crime which removed them, even in the United States from the realm of protected speech and the First Amendment.

THAT said, Google, Bing or Yahoo’s job is to index the Web. Unless and until the search engine is notified or discovers that the site or pages DO contain that their crawlers would continue to index that or those pages. Once they are, though, they voluntarily stop indexing them. Note carefully that there is no government coercion that they do that. They just do. And yes, very broadly speaking that IS censorship but the bulk of the site you describe (poorly) is dedicated to records of a criminal act there is no blocking or the hint of blocking protected speech.

That said you’re still a twit, You just moved on to being a major league one with that.

Further you asked that question of the wrong person when you asked me. So, in the simplest language I can use let me explain why.

I am a survivor of adolescent (child legally) sexual abuse at the hands of my father. Nearly a decade of it. Now let me make something else as clear as I can, jackass, Well over 90% of the sexual abuse of children occurs in family at the hands of a parent or close relative (uncle, aunt) not some pedo in a raincoat flashing outside of a school. The rest of the majority of it happens at the hands of a trusted adult as in coach, teacher, priest, pastor etc.

To add a bit more information to your addled brain let me add that the people I’ve listed above were, in the vast majority of cases abused themselves by parent or trusted adult. Got it? Clear now? If it isn’t then I agree with the AC you answered. You need psychiatric care for that anger of yours that you want to call scorn. At the very least.

The question itself is a trap. It cannot be answered without on one hand, people like you jumping up and down screaming that “hey, you see you agree with censorship” or that “hey, you see you are willing to to index a site that shows the commission of a heinous crime.”

Even worse, you equate, as did the person who first asked it, the commission of a life altering crime on a child with the civil matter of possible, let me repeat, possible copyright infringement. Even if it is criminal infringement there is no way to equate the two in terms of impact. Clear? Or are you and the person who originally asked the question so completely heartless and ignorant that you don’t see that difference? That you repeat that crap here shows that you’re both heartless and ignorant.

To get back to the point of free speech when organizations like the Heritage Foundation (hope I got that right) bring that up and object to SOPA/PIPA on the basis of censorship as well as the dangers they pose to the Web and Internet themselves I’d say that argument is far from over on the basis of their probable slippery slope potentials themselves.

That objection is far from done and far from surrendered to PIPA/SOPA supporters and some of the more extreme trolls and twerps like you. You’re beneath contempt, beneath scorn.

You wanted an answer, there it is. There is a massive difference between the question you ask and copyright infringement. One MAY lose someone some money. The other robs the victim of a life they may have had or life itself as more than half of sexual abuse victims will commit suicide before they’re 25. How dare you.

You’re worse than my father was.