I agree with her stance and mission. But I don’t think she was able to address the questions they are concerned about.

There many things she could have said to answer them by at least deflecting the focus.

For example, Why doesn’t the UK hold Canon and Nikon and the camera companies accountable to the content of the photos they capture if it was illegal?

Why doesn’t it hold VLC accountable for the videos it plays.

There is a laundry list of areas she could have focused on to show how ridiculous this idea is and the true nature behind it.

Even if they monitor illegal content, bad people will find another way of doing it.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

This would have been a mistake. You can't ridicule your opponent. You need to appear serious and concerned. Especially when people bring child pornography in the discussion.

Depends how its done. But either way I don't think she answered the questions well. I'm a fan of her work tho for the most part

Yes at times I wish she answered differently too but we need to keep in mind this debate wasn't in good faith and it was time limited so there are places she couldn't afford to go.

agree.

hope he message is more clear now.

to the other commenter, suggesting that you can't ridicule the opponent: i think that's exactly what she should do. public difficult is the only non-violent solution to these doughnuts