Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
You are a skilled interviewer and I enjoy your podcast. Don’t take this the wrong way, Dave, but you were wrong to repeatedly try to associate child pornography with Mr. Wilson’s efforts in any way. And he was right in pushing back forcefully. It is guilt by association and is beneath you. The rest of the interview was interesting and illuminating.
If more interviewees had a zero-tolerance policy regarding such questions from the media, there would be a healthier relationship between the press and everyone else. As it is, the press lays traps in order to obtain incriminating sound bites. In today’s world of Twitter mobs and real-life mobs, this poses a professional and physical danger to the targets. I’m sure Mr. Wilson can take care of himself; he’s certainly not afraid of controversy. Understand that others may be less well-armored.
Doc thanks for the comment. That 2 minutes certainly got the ire of many. I understand. Not to be too defensive but the push was because Cody said he doesn’t believe in any restraint when it comes to ‘free speech’. I used the extreme case because some sickos have argued 1A should allow access to anything. I loved his defense and acknowledged that, but when someone who considers themselves an anarchist suggests there should be no limits, I believe it’s fair to ask these questions. Many dont see it that way and I understand why.
Thanks for listening.
Dave, I also enjoyed the interview. I’ve written a post about it, which will be up shortly.
I disagree with the good doctor regarding the child pornography issue. Cody’s crypto-anarchism has at least as much to do with First Amendment as Second Amendment issues, and arguably more. While I think that Cody side-stepped the issue well (and that he was wise to do so), and that you graciously set it aside after one or two tries to introduce it as a limit case for Cody’s information-should-be-free argument, I do think that the broader question is the more interesting one: forget about guns, what if any boundaries should we try to enforce on information — and is it even meaningfully possible to impose boundaries at all?
Very interesting interview. Thanks.
Thanks Hank. Look forward to your post, as always.
When I first saw the video, I wondered why Cody was so angry and defensive. I could have answered the question from a libertarian point of view pretty calmly.
As anyone who follows the news knows, 30 year-old Cody is in trouble for allegedly having sex with a minor girl, who he met on website that encourages young women to hook up with wealthy men.
And suddenly, it becomes clear why Dave’s question is relevant. Sugardaddymeet.com, where Cody allegedly procured the 16 year-old, seems to operate as a digital pimp. And like a pimp, there doesn’t seem to be an effective barrier for very young girls to apply. I may be old-fashioned, but it looks a lot like a prostitution ring thats shamefully lures high school girls into the fold.
And I don’t want to hear that “many 16 year-old look like they’re 20” routine. That only applies when the guy is young too. 30 year-old men have no business looking for sex with vulnerable teenagers. A number of young girls and boys are now more likely to be sexually abused because of the internet, and Dave was trying to address the issue of protecting the vulnerable.
Cody reportedly exchanged nude photos with the minor, which, if true, would actually qualify as the sort of thing that Dave innocently asked about in broad terms.
Knowing all this sheds light on a possible reason for Cody’s angry and out of proportion reaction to Dave’s question. Listen to the interview again.
I haven’t gone back to listen again (and yes, I’d encourage everyone who hasn’t heard it to listen; it’s a great interview), but, if I remember correctly, Wilson basically said that he didn’t want to be the cast as the guy defending child pornography. I sympathized with that: no one wants to be that guy, and no one wants his greater point to be lost in that discussion. Unfortunately for Wilson, the bigger point he tried to make — that information will be free and that that’s okay — necessarily means that we do have to address the dangerous and unsavory implications of that.
One can talk about the inevitability of encryption and the impossibility of controlling information without making a value judgment, and without defending the misuse of information. But the moment one takes an advocacy position, an ideological position, as Wilson does — at that moment, one has to address the moral pitfalls. Wilson wasn’t willing to do that. I assumed that was a tactical decision aimed at remaining a sympathetic advocate; now one has to wonder, as you do, if there was an additional motivation to his evasion.