Should the Internet be Censored?

[calguyhunk]

^ :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

As for the poll, I'm afraid it's not a simple yes or no answer IMO as some of the members have noted already. So I'm kinda' unable to vote atm.

If an independent agency (that includes members from free speech advocacy groups, not any government agency) can block out only 2 things, I'll go along with a total and completely free net.

1. Incendiary ideas from terrorists, fascists and in general gross human rights violators.

2. Child pornography.

[Arachnoid]

NO, internet is freedom.

Freedom as in the terms of the wild west where men where men and Indians killed for sport......Maybe Im taking it to extreems and over exaggerating with that statement but without order there is just chaos and chaos breeds unlawful trade and the abuse of others libertys and freedoms.

You can live in the assumption of freedom, abandoned to all to take advantage of your nievity and incivility or conform to some sort of code of conduct as used by most modern countrys.Now to the crux ....... who makes the rules, who impliments those and in what context now theres the rub as Shakespeare would say.

Im not a proponant of the RIAA, its kin or its tactics which are amorale but some chaining by cardinal rules does need applying to the wild beast before it turns on the very people who use it daily.

You have been warned, head it well young jedi there will not be another.

[speedy57]

^ :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

As for the poll, I'm afraid it's not a simple yes or no answer IMO as some of the members have noted already. So I'm kinda' unable to vote atm.

If an independent agency (that includes members from free speech advocacy groups, not any government agency) can block out only 2 things, I'll go along with a total and completely free net.

1. Incendiary ideas from terrorists, fascists and in general gross human rights violators.

2. Child pornography.

I'm agree with that. But this is still written in the law of most countries so they can block these sites. No need for censorship, just apply the law.

[calguyhunk]

But this is still written in the law of most countries so they can block these sites. No need for censorship, just apply the law.

That sort of lawmaking is called censorship.

Definition of censorship: "A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable."

Now who decides what is politically or morally objectionable? In a conservative country, one might think it's morally objectionable to host fashion shows with skimpily clad women. Should we censor that?

In the US, some people have very strong anti abortion, anti gay rights sentiments. Should we take away their civil rights too in the name of political objections 'coz women and the LGBT's dare to ask for their right to a dignified existence?

Don't you think it's funny that some people use free speech to spread fud's and suppress the very same thing that is giving you the right to talk trash about anything and everything that you and your pea-brain don't agree with?

[Arachnoid]

Even the US has proponents on both side of the fence on most arguments hence the Senate and all its daily batch of hot air.There is usually some merit in both sides of an argument depending on the viewpoint ,compromise and deal making are a way of life in such places so why not on the subject of the internet censorship too?

As to anti abortion and anti gay rights Im sure if you went from state to state the majority vote would continually swing from one side to the other especially in deeply religious areas or the likes of California.So even there the boundarys are grey and not set in stone.

Free speech and free will comes at a price, the price is compromise with your neibour.

[speedy57]

Terrorism, fascism, violation of human rights and child pornography are forbidden so I can not see it as censorship. :nono:

[calguyhunk]

Terrorism, fascism, violation of human rights and child pornography are forbidden so I can not see it as censorship. :nono:

Hi speedy, you haven't specified where you're from, but my guess is that English prolly ain't your first language and you're having a little problem understanding my post :(

What I said was that I support censorship only when it pertains to the 2 afforementioned points. Everything else should be free :)

[speedy57]

Terrorism, fascism, violation of human rights and child pornography are forbidden so I can not see it as censorship. :nono:

Hi speedy, you haven't specified where you're from, but my guess is that English prolly ain't your first language and you're having a little problem understanding my post :(

What I said was that I support censorship only when it pertains to the 2 afforementioned points. Everything else should be free :)

It's exactly what i understood, but i wrote that i don't feel it as censorship about this points...

;)

[calguyhunk]

... i don't feel it as censorship about this points... ;)

But technically, it is the definition of censorship! To stop somebody from expressing his ideas ;)

[dim505]

who is the troll who put yes

[etherbion]

The government only needs to make sensors for things that are considered harmful to a country. Moreover, interference of the agents who work less like the CIA or the FBI and the like that are always taking care of other countries.