Interesting angle on this issue:
Conroy's internet filtering plan 'may lead to painful deaths'
THOUSANDS of elderly Australians who want the "basic human right" to have control over how they will die will suffer if the Rudd Government's proposed internet filtering law is passed later this year, says leading euthanasia advocate Dr Philip Nitschke.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/conroys-internet-filtering-plan-may-lead-to-painful-deaths/story-e6frf7l6-1225821581936
Australia has always marked euthanasia, and its related drugs, illegal. This is largely because of possible abuse of these drugs, they can cause
death to
people who don't want to die. It can also allow
emos to do
silly things to themselves.
That aside, the question we should be asking is, if something is illegal, does that mean information relevant to the illegal act should be banned?
Should websites demonstrating how to make home-made explosives be banned?
Should websites demonstrating how to hack a computer be banned?
Should websites demonstrating how to euthanize be banned?
Should websites demonstrating how to perform backyard abortion be banned?
Should websites demonstrating how to download a song be banned?
Where is the line between crime and thoughtcrime?