Slashdot Mirror
Imagine A UN-Run Internet
Damon Dimmick writes "Small countries in the United Nations have been arguing to put the Internet under the control of the UN so that countries can more easily monitor (read: control) Internet content. It's on hold for now, but this could become a very real censorship problem, very soon. Some nations have gone so far as to suggest "monitoring boards" for internet content. Here is the link to the Financial Times article. It briefly describes the current situation. Just something to keep an eye on."
On the other hand, it's US companies that are paving the way with open arms!!! That is the bigger news here! We value free speech right up until someone pays us to take it away from those they don't like..that is truly sad. There oughta be a law against it, US companies contributing to blocking of free speech. But if they were TRULY AMERICANS THEY WOULDN'T DO IT AT ALL!
Pax americana eh? While somewhat true it ignores some pretty big things like, oh, say the USSR's role in keeping the peace or the fact that the US has started more wars in the last 50 years than any other country. Of course, it remains true that beacuse the US is so damm powerful nobody dares attack either us or our allies directly. It is important to note that the US does tend to work through the UN in most cases of international diplomacy -- current administration nonwithstanding.
Most of your other comments were flames, but WHO has done some great work in saving millions of lives and disparaging their contribution shows your ignorance on the subject (what they ahve to do with H-1B visas god only knows).
Iraq was a worldwide effort, while roughly 75% of the troops were US troops from nearly 50 countries did participate and in some cases, Britain and others, were significant combat forces.
Also, in the days after WWII the UN wasn't run solely by allied powers, by this time it was run by countries hostile to the allies (i.e. Soviets and the new Communist China).
You mean we lowly non-believers can finally rape little boys at whim and preach hate towards those who are different?!!?
FINALLY WE ARE TRULY FREE!
So you have freedom of speech, as long as you don't say anthing the UN disagrees with.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
You do realize that "Europe" consists of several countries? In Finland, our president is a woman, our previous prime-minister was a woman, our previous speaker of the house was a woman. So, what were you saying?
How can you say that american culture and history is somehow "better" tha European culture and history? How do you define "better" in this context?
Any links to proove that the US medical-system is "best"? And since it doesn't take care of all those who need it, can it really be defined as "best"? Besides, there are private hospitals in Finland, where the better-off could go to get treatment. And I dare to say that quality of the care is at least as good as anything you could get at USA.
God bless America so they could attack sovereign nations without provocation? And imprison citizens of foreign countries, throw them in to a concentration-camp and hold them there without accusing them of any crime or giving them access to legal aid or consult their embassies? Yeah, God bless America indeed.
BTW, have they found any WMD's in Iraq yet? No? That's what I thought....
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
However, if a company like Wallmart could tell a band like Nirvana to change lyrics to their songs, and get the band's compliance can you honestly say that that corporate censorship doesn't happen in America?
In today's world (as opposed to their world a few years ago) Nirvana could easily post an alternate version of the song on their website and just sell the "censored" version at WalMart. Furthermore, no, that's not censorship. That's WalMart saying, "we won't sell music containing X because it would hurt our reputation". That doesn't stop Nirvana from making the song and selling it elsewhere.
The net's great, but it is still nowhere as important in informing public opinion as the print and broadcast media.
This is true, and I never said otherwise. I simply said that censorship is impossible because you can always go anonymously on the 'net to publish your thoughts.
Consider this too. Should we oppose selling to either AOL or Microsoft, for example, exclusive rights to content-filter the net? If you think this is something that should be opposed, then you do see that non-state censorship is possible, and in fact want to oppose it, well done! The parent poster would have to say, well there's no censorship there, I'll just accept it.
Of course we should oppose this, but it's next to impossible for it to happen because of the way the network is setup. First of all, who has this "right" to sell it? Secondly, when did this become a "right" anyway? AOL and Microsoft don't have the infrastructure to control the network, and therefore they are unable to censor it.
So when the Chinese block the net, those Chinese who are unaware that something is being blocked, (ie they don't want access to that information, they don't even know that information exists), you maintain that is not censorship? I beg to differ.
Ok, so maybe I worded it wrong. If someone says "you can't publish this" and then enforces it, it's censorship. If someone says, "you can't see this" and then enforces it, it's censorship. My point was, when someone says, "I have this information, but I'm not telling!" that's not censorship. It's called keeping a secret. It's called confidential information. It's not called censorship. Censorship requires a party other than a publisher and reader.
The problem is that we have contending rights that must be balanced. In your equation the right to free speech simply trumphs the right to make an informed democratic choice.
I don't have any idea what you're talking about. Where did I say anything about a right to make an informed democratic choice?
If a government engaged in some activity, which it was vital for the citizenry to know about in coming to a decision to excercise their democratic rights, it is wrong for Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner and a handful of others, merely by virtue of their control of the media, and merely because they stand collectively to gain from said activity, to decide that such information be surpressed.
I agree that it would be wrong, but it would not be censorship. If a reporter found out about it, went to post it on the web, and was stopped by his employer, that would be censorship, but the 'net affords a certain anonymity that guarantees that the employer couldn't stop the reporter.
As well as having a right, the media have a duty to report those things reasonably necessary for the conduct of an informed democractic republic.
This is true; however, firstly, the USA is not an informed democratic republic. The USA is a democratic republic full of people who have no idea what the hell is going on. This isn't the media's fault. It's the fault of the people who couldn't care less and therefore don't pay attention. Secondly, if the media fails in this duty, it's not censorship, it's simply keeping secret something they shouldn't. There is a huge difference.