Silk Road forums

Quote from: kmfkewm on January 23, 2013, 11:00 am

The availability of free adult porn over P2P/the internet in general,  has done enormous damage to the for profit adult porn industry. It threatens the very future of the adult pornography industry. You really are clueless aren't you??

PS: Making child porn distribution illegal actually causes the value of child porn production to increase, if it were not for the fact that tens of millions of people and websites publicly give CP away to anyone who asks for it, criminalization of distribution would have led to increased profits for distributors. Just like criminalization of cocaine is what gives it most of its value.

Yes, of course technology has resulted in the wide scale proliferation of porn that has been damaging to the adult industry. And I have no doubt that technology will continue to close the gap that allows the for-profit adult industry to be able to still charge for content today. That doesn't take away from the fact there's still an enormous potential revenue stream to be had by legalizing the possession and distribution of for profit child pornography today.

Because your claim that the illegality of child porn has increased its demand is straight bullshit and ignorant. If anything its illegality has DECREASED demand because of the costs associated with possessing and distributing it. Its increased its value, yes. Because the far fewer that still demand it are willing to pay a premium for it by taking the far greater risks associated with possessing and distributing it. This is all just the simple economics of supply and demand. But illegality hasn't increased demand, quite the opposite.

You could make a cogent case that TECHNOLOGY has increased demand by jading enough people to adult porn that a small percentage of thrill seekers who aren't even pedophiles seek it out. But that percentage will only rise when there are no longer any personal costs associated with possessing it. And guess what happens when that percentage rises? DEMAND INCREASES. And what happens when demand increases? Supply increases increases in attempts to meet the increased demand. And assuming you're not a pedophile you don't want to see the supply increase. You see? Well probably not, but this is logic. You should try and use it sometime.

First of all there are already several million CP images and videos, so there is quite a large supply. Only very large trading groups manage to exhaust the currently available supply of CP, and if an individual spent ten seconds looking at every CP image available in a row it would take them a year or two straight before they came close to exhausting the supply. Second of all, thrill seekers who aren't even pedophiles are the primary type of people who view CP. Third of all, it isn't like someone literally consumes CP in the sense that after they view an image it is gone forever. The same image can be copied a billion times and seen for the first time by an unlimited number of people. The only scenario in which I see supply and demand apply is on the massive trading platforms that have upload quotas for continued membership. Certainly supply and demand does not apply to P2P networks, it isn't like someone downloads some CP and then some magic happens that causes some random pedophile to sense the increased demand and molest a kid to add the photo to the P2P network. There is no incentive to share CP on P2P networks and it is extremely risky, finding people with CP has become literally like shooting fish in a barrel you just make a simple software program that searches P2P networks for some keywords, downloads the files that match the keywords, compares their hash value to known CP image hash values and spits out thousands upon thousands upon thousands of IP addresses at a time. The only reason they haven't arrested millions more people for CP distribution is because of the overwhelming number of people who are downloading CP from P2P networks without realizing that they automatically share everything they download. If P2P network software didn't automatically share everything that a person downloads, the amount of CP available from such networks would be a tiny fraction of what it currently is.

Anyway I think I have pretty exhaustively argued against you with this strategy, and now I will take a slightly different approach. Before I argued that legalization of child pornography possession and distribution will not lead to increased levels of child molestation, and in fact will decrease the levels of child molestation. Now I will argue while pretending to hold the incorrect assumption that legalization of child pornography will increase the amounts of child molestation. Imagine alcohol. A lot of people enjoy alcohol, others find it to be quite immoral to drink, many are neutral regarding it, and essentially nobody really needs to consume it, it is purely recreational. Now I think that the majority of people do not think that drinking Alcohol is immoral, but a lot of people think that drunk driving and crashing your vehicle into an innocent bystander should be illegal. Now, it is correct to say that if alcohol is outlawed, the rates of drunk driving will plummet. But clearly it is wrong to restrict the rights of those who drink responsibly simply because some people are irresponsible and do immoral things related to alcohol. The same logic applies to child pornography, even incorrectly assuming that legalized possession and distribution will lead to higher rates of child molestation. A lot of people enjoy viewing child pornography, others find it to be quite immoral to view, few are neutral regarding it, and essentially nobody needs to consume it, it is purely recreational. It is the producers of child pornography, those who molest children, that are engaging in immoral behavior (these are the drunk drivers). The possessors and distributors of child pornography are not engaging in immoral behavior, and thus far your argument that they are is that their demand for child pornography leads to a supply being created, thus leads to child molestation. Likewise, the demand of people who do not get drunk and crash into innocent bystanders is a large part of the reason why people who do get drunk and crash into innocent bystanders have a supply of alcohol. Following your logic, it makes sense to prohibit alcohol, restricting those who do not harm others, in order to prevent drunk driving and protect innocent bystanders from being crashed into. According to my logic, we need to put the blame for immoral activities on the perpetrators of immoral activity, and it is immoral to punish others for the perpetrators immoral actions, even if this punishment would reduce the ability of the perpetrators to engage in their immoral activities.

Another argument I could present to you is more in order to reveal your inherent desire for child pornography to be illegal regardless of its relationship with child molestation rates. When people go with the flawed supply and demand argument for child pornography possession and distribution criminalization, I like to point out a technology known as private information retrieval. This is a cryptographic system in which a client can request an item from a server or group of servers, with out the servers knowing the item that is being requested. Although hardly practical, it is entirely in the realm of possibility to have a group of servers that store every single child pornography photograph ever created, and allow people to download them without the possibility of the servers knowing how many people are downloading child pornography (although the servers would need to contain at least one item that is not child pornography as well). the servers can determine how many people are downloading items, but they are completely incapable of determining which items are being downloaded, and thus they are incapable of determining the demand for child pornography. Do you think that if such a system was put into place, that the rate of child pornography production would plummet? Do you support legalizing the possession and distribution of child pornography so long as the possessors and distributors use a PIR algorithm ??

and religious people think that you are insane to use force to reduce the probability that their children will not burn in eternal hell fire.

I unfortunately have met my fair share of highly religious people. They tend to do a pretty decent job of compartmentalizing their insanity. Many of them would want to have highly educated children, although only in particular fields. A lot of religious people are quite well educated in general, they have lawyers, chemists, accountants, etc. Their primary beef is with biologists, although they also are largely incompatible with a large amount of other scientific fields. And of course there are some exceptions, like most sorts of thought disorder, religion can be minimally disruptive ("I think there is some God") or extremely disruptive ("I know that XYZ is God worship him or die!!!").

Essentially you want to force the children to do learn what you think is right (and if you think science is right, which I find to be unlikely in all areas but probably likely in some, then I agree with you that science is right), Their parents want to teach them what they think is right. You have no right to force them to teach them what you think is right, anymore than the religious people have a right to force you to teach your children that their religious Dogma is right. In a libertarian world you can both do what you think is right, you just cannot force others to do anything except be libertarian. And that is why it is so awesome, in a libertarian world EVERYBODY WINS (except for people who want to force anything other than libertarianism).

First of all, let it never be said that it was I who began with the ad hom and insults when trying to engage in a reasoned debate.

In this thread anyway .

Saying that legalizing the distribution and possession of CP will lead to children being molested is about as real world as saying that legalizing marijuana will lead to the rape of white women by drug crazed blacks.

And the fallacy of this statement, ladies and gentlemen, so resoundingly speaks for itself that I'd be remiss to argue with him. Kmf discredits himself in the words of his very rants.

No please do explain why I am wrong. I mean let's see the studies. Here is one example of many. I mean I am sure you can find some study from the institute of spending tax dollars on funding ourselves to combat child pornography and pay ourselves salaries that says 110% of people who are within five miles of CP molest fifty billion children on average, but I can also find studies saying smoking marijuana makes your dick shrivel off so....

ROFL. Soooo, you're promoting the distribution of child pornography in order to decrease overall child molestation now? You vigilante instrument of justice you. LMAO!

https://www.springer.com/about+springer/media/springer+select?SGWID=0-11001-6-1042321-0

Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues.
Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.
Diamond and team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes in the Czech Republic as it transitioned from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Pornography was strictly prohibited between 1948 and 1989. The ban was lifted with the country’s transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense.
The researchers monitored the number of sex-related crimes from Ministry of Interior records – rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse in particular – for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted.
Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.
Other results showed that, overall, there was no increase in reported sex-related crimes generally since the legalization of pornography. Interestingly, whereas the number of sex-related crimes fell significantly after 1989, the number of other societal crimes – murder, assault, and robbery – rose significantly.
Reference
Diamond M et al (2010). Pornography and sex crimes in the Czech Republic. Archives of Sexual Behavior. DOI 10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y

I mean for someone who argues that he is so in support of science, why LOL at the science man? It seems like you really are quite religious yourself, it is just that you are part of the religion of Statism. Do the fucking research and you will see that I am right. The availability of child pornography strongly negatively correlates with the prevalence of child molestation.

But a more direct answer to your question, no I don't promote the distribution of child pornography for this reason. In fact I don't even promote the distribution of child pornography at all. I promote peoples rights to be free and to not be enslaved because a bunch of statist slave traders and brain washed fools are either evil or mind fucked. The fact that respecting peoples right to freedom results in much less children being molested is just a nice benefit. Generally when you respect freedom really really good things start happening! It is for this reason that I think freedom must be forced on the entire world. I can hardly imagine all the great things we will see when this happens, but I know they will be plentiful. I don't think a Utopia will be created, but I certainly think that the progress made and the good things that result will be stunningly remarkable.

Quote from: kmfkewm on January 23, 2013, 09:02 am

You have a complete lack of understanding of the world of modern child pornography. In the probably futile attempt to give you truthful information to base your beliefs on, I will enlighten you.

What strikes me more than anything else from your comprehensive recounting of the recent history of child pornography is how you seem to be completely missing the obvious. WHY DO YOU THINK commercial for profit studio production of child pornography has ground to a halt? The answer is right in your hagiography. IT WAS MADE ILLEGAL. Not only was production made illegal, but possession and distribution of it was made illegal. The US put cracking down on child pornographers at the top of their enforcement list and the continued awareness of the harms it inflicts had the rest of the world follow suit by making its enforcement a priority.

The biggest production studios EVER operated AFTER child pornography was made illegal. The demand for child pornography today is FAR, FAR HIGHER than the demand for child pornography prior to it being made illegal. The reason commercial for profit production ground to a halt was indeed partially due to it being illegal. The reason for profit distribution ground to a halt is almost entirely due to technological changes. When the for profit distribution channels were at their peaks was right before largely distributed P2P technology became more mainstream. Nobody is going to risk their freedom paying for child pornography (making themselves a top priority consumer) when they can get the same shit for free from a P2P network (blending in with the other tens of millions of consumers using this technique, from which 1% of those identified by law enforcement are arrested in any given year).

Today child pornography consumption is literally an epidemic compared to what it was when it was first made illegal. This probably is largely to do with the prevalence of internet pornography in general, because if you actually knew about the demographics of the consumers of child pornography, you would find out that the majority of them are desensitized pornography addicts who need increasingly taboo content to get aroused, and not even pedophiles. Huge increase in the amount of legally available pornography and ease of access to legally available pornography = huge increase in the amount of people who consume pornography = huge increase in the amount of people who become progressively desensitized to pornography = huge increase in the amount of people who consume increasingly taboo pornography = huge increase in the amount of people who consume child pornography.

By making possession, sale, and distribution illegal the COMMERCIAL AVENUES FOR CHILD PORN DRIED UP. It NO LONGER BECAME PROFITABLE TO PRODUCE IT. Well, technically it was still profitable but not at the risk it incurred. Not having distribution channels meant it was far more difficult to profit off it. Selling this stuff for profit puts a huge target on your back and makes it far easier to track you through the digital and paper trails. With the stigma and penalties for even simple possession the risks came to far outweigh the benefits for those that would otherwise be involved in distribution.

This is really not rocket science.

Well actually as I said prior the LARGEST FOR PROFIT STUDIOS AND DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD OPERATED AFTER CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WAS MADE ILLEGAL, NOT PRIOR. Additionally MORE CP IS DISTRIBUTED AND CONSUMED TODAY THAN AT ANY OTHER POINT IN HUMAN HISTORY DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT IS MORE ILLEGAL TODAY THAN AT ANY OTHER POINT IN HUMAN HISTORY. Also the production studios in Eastern Europe got slapped on the wrists. Not all of them even did any time in jail at all. In lots of places in the world there really just isn't that much stigma associated with these things. Shit I think Japan just made child pornography illegal a few years ago, and it is still legal to possess in the Czech Republic. Actually it is legal to view in a few states of the USA so long as you don't intentionally save a copy (cache doesn't count).

So of course it's become more centered around hobbyists and enthusiasts these days. And with the internet being the primary distribution channel for porn now all my points stand. By not making possession and distribution illegal, and instead allowing distributors to profit off its distribution your policy would in essence promote it.

This is all really just common sense and I'm sorry you seem to have such difficulty seeing it.

See the thing is I don't particularly give a shit if people possess or distribute child pornography so long as they don't molest children. Your argument assumes that I think possession or distribution of child pornography is an immoral thing, but I only think child molestation is immoral.

Quote from: kmfkewm on January 23, 2013, 03:48 am

I believe that child pornography should be legal to possess and distribute, however not legal to produce as production inherently involves child molestation which is what should be illegal.

Yeah but by allowing child porn to be possessed and distributed you'd be actually promoting its continuing production by not removing the economic incentive that drives its production in the first place. A policy like that would have the real world affect of more pedophiles (or even just unethical opportunists) willing to take the risk of producing it because of the financial incentives while the chances of getting caught would be minimized. Why? Because as soon as it's secretly produced and hits their distribution channels they cash in. Since their distribution channels would be free to possess, distribute, and profit handsomely off it they have no reason to give up who the producer is, and in fact would have a strong financial incentive not to. You could say the public could boycott the stores that carry it, but seeing as to how porn is primarily distributed online these days that doesn't prevent the websites that cater to it from being driven out of business.

The real world outcome of such a policy would be more prepubescent children sexually exploited before the world. That's fucked up.

You have a complete lack of understanding of the world of modern child pornography. In the probably futile attempt to give you truthful information to base your beliefs on, I will enlighten you. Although for profit child pornography production and distribution are not unheard of, they are quite rare in modern times. I will tell you the simple facts. Please don't take what I say to mean that I minimize the immorality of child molestation, as this is not the case. Also you will be incorrect if you assume that I am a pedophile or have any sexual interest in viewing naked prepubescents.

It would be a lie for me to say that for profit child pornography production and distribution have never existed. Several decades ago, prior to child pornography being made illegal and prior to widespread use of the internet, the majority of child pornography was produced by commercial studios and distributed for profit. After child pornography was made illegal in the United States, it quickly became extremely rare until the internet started to become more mainstream. Production studios shut down and there were no safe distribution channels, although I believe there were some mail order services that advertised in magazines (the postal inspectors were at this time the primary agency that combated child pornography).

With the rise of the internet child pornography made a substantial come back. Private networks of traders came into contact and distributed images amongst themselves, the wonderland club is one of the earlier such groups that I am aware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cathedral . Of note is the fact that it did not cost money to join the wonderland club. At the time a large percentage of child pornography was distributed in this fashion, freely over private forum based groups and on Usenet as well.

One of the more modern for profit child pornography production and distribution groups was LS studios (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Ukrainian_child_pornography_raids). Most of the modern production studios have been based in Eastern European countries and produced softcore images. They have been responsible for the vast majority of modern for profit child pornography, producing millions of images with thousands of children. It is worth noting that these studios placed advertisements for 'models', paid the children who signed up, and had as much consent from the children as a child can give (which you may say is zero, but I find a distinction exists between photographing a naked child against their will and photographing them naked without them attempting to resist, although both may very well be immoral there is a difference). Additionally, they had the consent of their parents. In many cases the images they produced may not be what most people think of when they imagine child pornography. In some cases it would not be much of a stretch to compare the images to photographic versions of the famous paintings of naked prepubescent angels, with props used in an attempt to create this effect ( an example of such a painting: http://i01.i.aliimg.com/wsphoto/v0/618796241/100-hand-painted-wall-art-high-quality-Bouguereau-font-b-angels-b-font-font-b-oil.jpg). A more fair comparison may be to the infamous brooke shields photographs, which were taken by a professional photographer with her and her mothers consent when she was I believe ten years old. These photographs have been determined by the courts as legal in many jurisdictions including the USA, and have even been in museums (with limited success, frequently they have been pulled after overwhelming complaints). The following article has a cropped image and a bit of background story, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/6248757/Brooke-Shields-photographer-disappointed-by-police-pornography-claim.html. , the entire set is available here https://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/06/05/brooke-shields-by-gary-gross/ (please note that although these photographs are beyond a doubt legal in the USA and many other countries, they may be considered child pornography in others. Click at your own discretion, there is nothing legal that more closely approximates softcore child pornography). Many people arrested with child pornography are arrested with images similar to this, but which have not had the blessings of the US courts.

All of the Eastern European production studios and the distribution networks stemming from them were shut down in the late 1990
s to mid 2000's. Although there have certainly been countless small scale for profit production operations since then, they have accounted for an extremely small percentage of the total amount of newly created child pornography. Skip ahead to the later 2000s and there is no police knowledge of ANY organized for profit distribution or production of child pornography. In 2010 virtually the entirety of commercial child pornography distribution was managed by a single group of Eastern Europeans (who managed hundreds of websites), and it was shut down by Interpol, virtually eliminating the existence of commercial child pornography distribution. They had a total of 30,000 customers which accounted for almost all known customers of commercial child pornography in the entire world at the time. As far as I can remember they were purely distributors and not involved with production at all:

http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/lawrence-and-leavenworth-cases-linked-to-massive-worldwide-child-porn-dragnet

...
Channing Burgess from Lawrence and Shawn Mullen in Leavenworth were two of 30,000 customers busted for their online subscriptions.
...
Child exploitation experts say the global bust does not mean the online universe is now child-porn free. The lion’s share of these images and videos are disseminated for free via e-mail and peer-to-peer file sharing between individuals, who often belong to trust-based clubs.
...
Since the websites -- with names like “Excited Angels” and “Boys Say Go” -- went offline in January, the number of active commercial child porn sites has nosedived from perhaps 300 to the single digits, said Dunn.

And really that article sums up the state of modern for profit child pornography production and distribution quite well. Although it is probably not entirely extinct, any existing for profit distribution operations are extremely small scale, account for probably less than 0.5% of total child pornography distribution. There are no known for profit studios or organized studios at all, and there have not been for many years now. This is not to say that absolutely nobody in the world produces child pornography and tries to sell it, it is just that this makes up such a tiny percentage of newly created child pornography as to be virtually insignificant to the global market (which is also virtually non-existent if you take market to mean people paying money for child pornography).

Let's contrast the ~50,000 (adding 20,000 to be a conservative estimate, considering some people probably got away and there are probably other underground yet small for profit channels) known buyers of child pornography IN THE WORLD between 2009 and 2010 with the amount of child pornography distributed for free over public peer to peer networks. over 30 months in the mid 2000's, a single P2P monitoring operation identified 30,000  IP addresses in a single state offering child pornography for free.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/08/AR2008040803930.html

As you can see, in a single TOWN of only 23,000 people, there were 1,058 KNOWN computers on a single P2P network that were offering CP completely free of charge and completely publicly to anyone who typed in the keywords and downloaded it.

The town of 23,000 is reported to have 1,058 known computers that sent hard-core child pornography to investigators.

And this was in 2005, and since then the technology they use to scan P2P networks has improved vastly and the numbers of detected systems has shot up to many times as many. There are currently MILLIONS of computers around the world offering MILLIONS of CP images free of charge on P2P networks. There are public hidden services with hundreds of thousands of CP images free of charge, visited by hundreds of thousands of people around the world (probably millions if you count freenet and I2P and other non-tor hidden services as well). There are free public image boards on the clear net that let anyone upload anything they want, and that have thousands and thousands of images of CP publicly and freely available on them. There are hundreds of private groups sharing millions of photographs freely with their members. In 2010 the entirety of known commercial CP distribution channels consisted of ~300 sites, something like 295 of them were operated by the same group of people and shut down in 2010, and they served thirty thousand customers around the world. By contrast there are MILLIONS of nodes on P2P networks serving TENS OF MILLIONS of people CP for free. As you can clearly see, for profit child pornography distribution is extinct. For profit child pornography production is all but extinct. In 2013 there simply are not for profit CP distribution channels or production studios.

In 2013 it is virtually impossible to find child pornography for sale. Almost all CP in circulation is freely available on public P2P networks and hidden services. Slightly less is traded on closed membership groups. There are no for profit production studios. CP is produced by parents and family friends, or authority figures over children, molesting the children close to them and uploading the photographs of the molestation to public P2P networks or forums, from where they are spread freely. Technically speaking, a large amount of modernly produced child pornography is self produced (often voluntarily, sometimes voluntarily but without the intention of it being distributed, too often by coercion over the internet), and this has been the case since it became standard for young children to have cell phones with cameras on them (although most of this involves young teenagers, and depending on your point of view may or may not actually qualify as child pornography).

So in summary, the secret production studios you think exist do not, and the for profit distribution channels you think exist do not. For profit child pornography has all but been completely eradicated from existence.

Today the most dangerous situation is certainly not for profit distribution or production, rather it is the closed membership distribution forums that require members to upload  X new pictures every Y period of time to maintain their membership and access to newly posted images. This is dangerous because these groups quickly exhaust the readily available supply of child pornography, and then in order to maintain membership people are tempted to actually produce their own child pornography so they can continue to meet the required quotas. After such a group has obtained so many images, it naturally progresses into a producers only private group as the people who refuse to produce are banned for not meeting their upload quotas. And really I think we can all agree that production is the primary bad thing.

@ Nightcrawler & Nightcrawler

i couldnt have said it better 

and IRC?!?!?!  dont think for one minute that it's safe  LOL  i was admin ad sexnet...dalnet..and 2 other servers for over 7 years.
IRC is not a ssafe as one would think  LOL 

i communicate with my clients using tormail and or in person .....


be safe 


ChemCat

 

IRC is as safe as the client you use. Considering the sheer number of top hackers who use IRC to communicate, I think that it must not be inherently dangerous.

This comes down again to peoples beliefs in Freedom of Speech, and how far that freedom should extend. I myself believe that freedom of speech is an essential human right, and we should always strive to uphold it, however I also believe there should be carefully considered limits and responsibilities that come with freedom of speech. Some examples maybe; a parent attempting to groom their child to accept sexual abuse, public hate speech directed at others (racism, gay bashing etc), subliminal broadcasts which attempt to secretly alter the listener/viewers thoughts on a subconscious level (if this is possible), child pornography containing real images of abuse.

I believe that child pornography should be legal to possess and distribute, however not legal to produce as production inherently involves child molestation which is what should be illegal. Subliminal broadcasts which attempt to secretly alter the listen/viewers thoughts on a subconscious level should also be legal, if you make that illegal you will essentially outlaw marketing and advertising. Public hate speech should be allowed on land that it is allowed on, I do not believe in the concept of public land and thus it is a non-issue, the rules regarding hate speech are determined by the owner of the land you are on. So I believe that I am more in favor of freedom of speech than you are. Indeed I even think it should be legal to yell fire in a crowded room, so long as the owner of the crowded room has not set any rule against it. People will avoid crowded rooms in which it is not against the rules to yell fire, and thus the problem is self correcting without the need to violate peoples right to freedom of speech and property. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you are free to say anything you want where and whenever you want, but it does mean that you are free to say anything you want on private land that has no rule against saying anything you want. 

Here's a question I'd throw out there for anyone who wants total freedom of speech (the freedom to say anything, to anyone, using any form of media, at any time or place, with no restrictions what-so-ever), surely it would follow that such freedoms would extend to the politician and the government? And therefore they should be free to spread propaganda (the truth of which might be open to interpretation) to the masses? Maybe even start the indoctrination from an early age - the classroom for example. A misinterpretation of history, leaving out key events and emphasizing certain sources and accounts over others, may not be directly lying but can utterly change the perception of the events and the meaning you take from the lesson. Exorcizing it's right to total freedom of speech, the government could drill home it's message to the pupils in other ways as well. Maybe get the pupils to all recite the propaganda together, in unison at the start of each school day (they say repetition is the key to accessing the subconscious). So, if all goes well everyone will grow up to be the perfect unquestioning drone, ready to believe whatever "news" the government and it's official news agents put before them ("Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia").

But I guess if you have no government then you have no problem then...

Well the government is currently doing all of these things that you are afraid of. Also I do not think that there should be a government. If some group of people wants to spread propaganda and lies, they should not be restricted from doing these things. Trust is quite important in a libertarian society, it is the most valuable asset there is. If a group is identified spreading propaganda, people will start to discredit them. The groups that consistently tell the truth will be the groups that are believed. I do not think there should be any law that says people can not for example put on television an ad that says smoking marijuana will make you want to rape white women. However, there should also be no laws against others putting an ad out that says that smoking marijuana is relatively harmless. The masses will come to recognize who tells lies in time, especially when scientific minded organizations come together that are interested in the pursuit of knowledge. Currently such organizations are restricted by the government, they are not allowed to carry out research on recreational drugs, they are denied government grants if they cast drugs in anything other than a negative light, and they are manipulated by a coercive organization. In a libertarian society these issues will be gone or less severe, there will not be government grants to be denied to researchers, there will not be governments to make laws against certain types of study. Intelligent people will have less trouble to recognize the truth, and the people who speak the truth will come to be respected by the masses and the liars will be seen for what they are. Already in the world of today there is an insane amount of information warfare, but due to governments there is no level playing field and so they are winning at indoctrinating people to their agenda.

However, I do think it is fraud for a cigarette company to advertise that smoking their cigarettes is not only healthy , but reduces your chances of dying of cancer (unless they can prove this to be the case). Just as I think it should be illegal for a person to sell cyanide tablets as candy. The issue in these cases is not one of freedom of speech but rather one of fraud. I can say that smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer and I am a liar but not a criminal, and it is my right to be a liar. But if I say smoking my cigarettes doesn't cause cancer then I have committed fraud and initiated force against others by deceiving them. Additionally, there will be trusted organizations of scientists that will confirm to the masses that smoking cigarettes does indeed cause cancer. And these scientists will not be paid by the government, but rather they will be funded voluntarily by the people who they supply information to. It will be in their best interests to supply correct information to people, because information will become part of a market, and those who give false information will lose their funding. People who give false information will not be funded by governments, as governments will be wiped out , as one of governments typical characteristics is that they are funded by taxation and as taxation is theft it will be forcibly halted by the militant libertarians. Now the cigarette industry may pay propagandists to advertise that cigarettes in general do not cause cancer (people can be paid to lie), but they cannot pay them to say that their specific brand of cigarette does not cause cancer (people cannot be paid to commit fraud). I have faith that the scientific community will be much larger than and able to overcome a few propagandists, even if the propagandists manage to get some people with degrees working for them. One example I can point to today is the scientific debate regarding climate change, of course there are a few scientists who have refuted climate change in its entirety, and they are often accused of being in the pocket of big industry. However, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community claims that climate change is really happening. Conversely we have the war on drugs propagandists who appear to outnumber the scientists interested in facts, but this is a different struggle than that of science versus the desires of corporations, this is the struggle of fact versus the interests of the government. And as already stated, in a libertarian society the government will be outlawed and thus they will have no way to use coercion to manipulate the information presented to society as truth.