'Net censorship: a necessary precaution or a repression?

Forums: Internet
Email this Topic • Print this Page

It's obvious that, in the age of exploitation of the internet by pædophiles, some protection is needed. Nevertheless, I feel that internet censorship is an inacceptable repression of freedom of speech and expression. I feel that, if the Government desire to spread its claws into the electronic world, it's another sign of not trusting the populace to set its own guidelines and decide for itself. Sure, there are myriad freaks out there, but it should be parents' responsability, not the government's, to decide what is and what is not acceptable. The danger with allowing the government leway into censoring webpages is that they could then do more than repress race-hating or perverse websites. What do you feel about this issue?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,815 • Replies: 39

No top replies

I think the internet is far to vast for the resources of government. As with marijuana use in the United States, a tiny fraction of internet users/abusers might fall victim to government intervention, but there are so many web pages, so many people on line, that the most of them would never come under scrutiny.

0 Replies

The really dangerous people are too clever to get caught or censored. You would end up trying to control a system used by billions of people, only missing the bad guys.

0 Replies

If there is a true problem on the net, it is the successful solicitation of the underaged by the predatory. Which leads us right back to the same issue at the core of censorship debates about television, motion pictures, magazines, etc.--if parents are doing their job, this will not be a problem. I would suggest that members of an insular, individually self-interested family are those most at risk.

0 Replies

It is not the business of government to censor what is on the internet, Kiddy porn is an exception, because it involves the use of a minor in a criminal act.

I surf the web through Google. They have a a place where I may decide whether I want to censor anything personally:

[quote]Google's SafeSearch blocks web pages containing explicit sexual content from appearing in search results.

Use strict filtering (Filter both explicit text and explicit images)

* Use moderate filtering (Filter explicit images only - default behavior)

Do not filter my search results.

[/quote]

I have chosen "moderate filtering", because I don't particularly want to see explicit pictures, but I don't mind explicit text, when in an appropriate context. But that is MY choice.

For parents, some ISPs offer "parental controls", which do the same thing.
For others, there is parental control software. I typed "parental control software" into Google, and came up with 110,000 hits. No parent has an excuse that there is a dearth of that kind of product available.

Again, it goes back to parental responsibility.When will people ever realize that by advocating government to act "in loco parentis", we are at risk of losing our freedoms? Let's all behave like adults, and stop looking outside of ourselves to do our jobs for us. The price is WAY too high!

0 Replies

My kids will have no computer, television or friends. They will stay in their rooms and learn to make macrame pot-holders with their own hair. Computers and TV are just for mommy and daddy.

0 Replies

Do you want to "censor" viruses? Censor the distribution of your credit card number in hacking circles?

The government needs to enforce the law. There are many things online that are illegal.

BTW, Phoenix, I can think of over 100 websites that Google was forced to remove from their index, in addition to the millions that Google penalizes for their own reasons. Google is "censored". ;-)

0 Replies

Censorship is a complicated mix. I favor it if it catches some outright charlatans and child abusers, but not for political gain. As Craven has said, the law must be enforced.

0 Replies

Craven- Interesting point, but I think that maybe it is besides the point.I certainly agree that passing around credit card numbers is something that needs to be controlled. But that is not on account of the internet. It is a crime to steal a credit card, whether by a street robber or a hacker.

IMO, a person who puts out a virus, is nothing more than an internet vandal, and should be treated as such. These people encroach on the peace and security of others, and need to be stopped and punished.

There is a BIG difference between people who are committing crimes electronically, and people who want to create websites that may be objectionable to some people on account of a difference in standards of morality.

As far as Google censoring, that IS their right. The TOS on Able2Know is a form of censorship. It tells people what they can and cannot do on this site. I censor. There are things that I will not watch, and that is a form of censorship. I believe that private individuals and organizations have a perfect right to censor. My objection is to GOVERNMENT censorship.

0 Replies

Phoenix,

I am talking both about Google's choice to censor and Google being censored.

Anti-Scientology sites were removed from Google against their wishes, Kazaa-Lite's site was removed from Google because of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=kazaa+lite

That's a search for kazaa lite, scroll to the bottom of the Google page.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

There is a BIG difference between people who are committing crimes electronically, and people who want to create websites that may be objectionable to some people on account of a difference in standards of morality.

...I censor. There are things that I will not watch, and that is a form of censorship. I believe that private individuals and organizations have a perfect right to censor. My objection is to GOVERNMENT censorship.

I agree with Phoenix myself: internet vandalism and pædophilia on the Internet are two things that someone needs to stop. This should be stopped. Yet, I feel that censoring the websites of the average Joe should not occur. This is not the best way to stop such disgusting deeds, because, as Steve said, they would end up trying to control a system used by billions of people, only missing the bad guys. Everyone should have a right to choose, if their choice will be one that will not physically harm others. I dislike pornography on grounds of degradation, but many others do like it. That should be the choice of them and I, not of some bureaucrat.

To have a democracy is to let people consider things for themselves; upping control on our choice would be a contradiction of its terms.

0 Replies

drom,

As soon as the site is censored it's no longer the site of the average Joe. Then again, find me one site that is not censored. Just one. ;-)

0 Replies

Phoenix and Craven both make lots of sense in their replies here -- and I don't see that anything either says truly contradicts what the other is saying.

0 Replies

Quote:

Anti-Scientology sites were removed from Google against their wishes

Craven- Do you have any more information on this? WHO removed the sites?

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

drom,

As soon as the site is censored it's no longer the site of the average Joe. Then again, find me one site that is not censored. Just one. ;-)

OK... my forum, jokingly called The Uzbek Focus Group, is not censored. It never has been, and never shall be.

Censorship always reminds me of injustice. Injustice always reminds me of how a very, very nice person whom I know, who was fired because of someone else making their opinion be known.

Tommy Boyd fired because of someone else's opinion

It startled him. He's the nicest guy whom one could ever meet. You see Craven, censorship- when taken to the 'fore- is not a way of protecting the public (how demeaning; can't we protect ourselves?) but rather a political tool. People censored me, because I wanted 'Christmas,' not Winterval.

Go bug computers and find out who is raping kids every day. Don't start stopping people from saying 'I dislike this' or 'I like that,' or you have an elected dictatorship on your hands.

0 Replies

Never mind- I found this. Looks like the Scientologists have a lot of high powered lawyers who are using the same law that related to Kazaa:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51233,00.html

Hmmm. Looks like Clambake is back on Google!

http://clambake.org/

The link to Xenu gets us back to Clambake. Well, there is more than one way to skin a cat!

As far as Kazaa is concerned, their claim is that Google was guilty of a copyright infringement. Here is a portion of a letter that the Kazaa attorneys sent to Google:

[quote]. Utilizing the search query, "kazaa," at www.google.com, the following search results and sponsored links (the "Infringing Material") contain unauthorized copies of the Kazaa Material or unauthorized derivative works of the Kazaa Material which infringe the Kazaa Material and the exclusive rights of the Owner:[/quote]

I refuse to wade through the law involved, but I got the idea!

0 Replies

drom,

I'm not talking about "I dislike this" or that. As to your claim about your forum being uncensored that's absolute bullshit.

I will refer you to the terms of service you agreed to when creating it. The terms of service your users are subject to is, in many ways, stricter than the TOS here. And we censor here.

Quote:

In order for all our members to enjoy our service and keep us running smoothly we have a few simple rules. If you cannot follow these rules, please find a different free hosting service with which to host your site.

No adult (porn sites) of any kind will be allowed on our service.
No warez (sites that contain illegal file downloads) sites will be allowed on our service.
No sites exploiting children under the age of 18, including modeling sites of young children.
No sites containing illegal music files (mp3 or other) will be allowed on our service.
FREE sites used primarily for storage will be removed from our servers. This is site hosting, not file storage. If you would like to store files, you may do so with any of our paid hosting packages (Bronze, Silever, or Gold).
We reserve the right to remove any web site for the reasons stated above, and will use its own understanding of the above rules to determine what constitutes a breach of our terms of service. By signing up for our service you agree to the above. If your site has been deleted, it has violated our terms of service.

Quote:

To use our service, you must agree to all the following:

3. CONTENT RESTRICTIONS

Your web site must conform to the following standards to be eligible to utilize this service:

User's content must comply in a manner consistent with any and all applicable laws of the State of California and the US Federal Government.
User's web site may not contain content promoting the use of illegal drugs, alcohol, sex, pornography, nudity, or any other form of adult content, profanity, hate, "spam," fraud, racism, mlm, pyramid schemes, or promote any illegal activity.
User's message board and Web site must be in English.

By clicking "Sign Up" the User hereby agrees to the terms set forth in this agreement under penalties of perjury and agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Provider from any claim resulting from the use of the Provider's services and agree that all information provided by the User to the Provider is true.

Last revision: February 3, 2002.

0 Replies

Yes, that's true, I agreed to terms and conditions. if someone decided to say 'Kill _______,' then it might be censored or deleted. By whom? Not by me, anyway, by the cyber powers that be. I would just contradict what they were trying to say, rather than repressing their opinions, be they deranged or not. Getting rid of offending sites is a different ball game to people discussing their opinions. When I buy a domain name and do the coding myself, however, there will be no censorship.

So, apart from getting rid of spammers/haters/rapists, are you for GOVERNMENT censorship, for that's the kind of censorship that I'm talking about.

0 Replies

My personal beliefs are that anyone should be able to look at anything they want or read anything they want as long as it does NOT involve children or those who are mentally incapable of making their own judgements.

It is also my belief that if you are willing to look at, listen to, read or take part in anything you desire...then you should do it realizing that there could be consequences for your actions and be willing to accept those consequences without whining like a little bitch.

I also believe if you bring children or the mentally incapable into your activities and harm of any kind comes to them you should have your balls ,your clitoris and/or your breasts amputated with a butter knife, have your eyes poked out and be left to wander in the desert. Fair's fair.

In the meantime, Slappy, Grotto and Skwerl, tonight is young greek girls with farm animals night at the Doll House if you guys want to meet me. All the girls are over 18 and their IQ's are at least room temperature so it's okay. I also have a signed permission slip from the goats pig and sheep. My attorney tells me a cloven hoof print will stand up in court. :wink:

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

My personal beliefs are that anyone should be able to look at anything they want or read anything they want as long as it does NOT involve children or those who are mentally incapable of making their own judgements.

It is also my belief that if you are willing to look at, listen to, read or take part in anything you desire...then you should do it realizing that there could be consequences for your actions and be willing to accept those consequences without whining like a little bitch.

I also believe if you bring children or the mentally incapable into your activities and harm of any kind comes to them you should have your balls ,your clitoris and/or your breasts amputated with a butter knife, have your eyes poked out and be left to wander in the desert. Fair's fair.

Bravo, Bear; those are my thoughts exactly- well, if you change 'desert' to 'El Salvadorian prison'. One should be able to trust others to come to their own conclusions and face the consequences of their actions, should they step out of line. Censorship will never stop people from doing as they want to.

*small typographical error: the--> they, drannit!

0 Replies

'Net censorship: a necessary precaution or a repression?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know