B'nai Brith Pushes for Web Regulation

Baldrson writes: "Wired magazine reports that in late August, B'nai Brith Canada tried to get the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) to pay attention to posts on the Islam Way weblog that solicited for volunteers to join Ossama bin Laden. According to the story: "...after media reports have suggested that Montreal and Halifax may have been meeting points for a number of the terrorists involved in the attack, B'nai Brith Canada is stepping up its efforts to get legislation passed to ban such Web activity.""

Comments

Fruitless

[eXtro]

There's a lot of things that are posted on the web which are objectionable, depending on your definition of objectionable. There are many things said in small groups of people that are objectionable. There are things said among large groups of people that are objectionable.

Trying to censor a viewpoint, no matter how wrong the view point is, can not possibly work. If you manage to censor the web (nearly impossible - just go off and start a GeoCities page or my.yahoo page, then another and then another and...) you only move the hateful speech someplace else. Hate didn't originate with the world wide web, its been around for a very long time. It's always managed to find a forum and it always will.

You're better off spending the funds that would be wasted on censorship on free books for libraries (especially grade school and high school libraries) in order to mold peoples brains into being more accepting of others.

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it!

[Saeger]

(not-a-flame)

You're both an atheist and an vegan you say? So, you deny the possible, however unlikely, existence of God(s), rather than choose the more logically neutral position of agnosticism; and you deny yourself the tender, juicy, delicious steaks that your canine teeth are in fact adapted for (evolutionary neutral) -- that's fine, more meat for us "belly-size-economizers". :-)

Anyway, more to the point, if there's one thing us humans like to do above all else, it's imposing our self-righteous will on others, especially our children.

The difference here is that our government is set up to NOT allow it to impose much of its will on free people (parents), but as parents are often fond of saying to their kids, "as long as you're living under my roof this is NOT a democracy!"

...as long as you're not raising, say, assassins...have at it! But when your kid rejects your attempt at a vegan indoctrination... don't be a dicktator. :)

Re:Don't ban it - encourage it!

[WNight]

It's not flamebait, it's an opinion. Way to call for censorship.

"You can't prevent parents from talking to their kids about religion."

I didn't claim to be able to.

But the fact that it's impossible to totally stop pedophila and child abuse doesn't mean we don't try.

"So I can see that a religious parent might feel angry if they were forced to bring up their child an atheist or an agnostic."

Yup. And I'm sure a molestor would be upset that he couldn't indulge.

As an aside, you don't "bring a child up athiest", you simply don't bring them up religious and they end up athiest. Athiesm isn't a codified set of beliefs, it's the freedom from religion.

"To people with strong views on religion, there are no 'neutral' positions."

True, but why are the views of an adult more important that the safety of a child?