Academics Take On Government Net Censorship

Anonymous Brave Guy writes "There's an interesting article from the BBC today about a group of academics at the University of Toronto who are working to investigate and break down government-imposed censorship of the Internet. Are they defending human rights, or simply trying to impose their own beliefs on people from other cultures? Incidentally, one of their people was responsible for the previous Slashdot discussion of 'five fundamental problems with open source'."

Comments

internet censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

the more you try and control it the more behind your back methods will be created.

Re:internet censorship

[No Such Agency]

The correct version:

The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems slip through your fingers - Princess Leia to Grand Moff Tarkin

Is there a difference?

[hanssprudel]

Are they defending human rights, or simply trying to impose their own beliefs on people from other cultures?

Is there really a difference between the two? Fundamentally, the acknowledgement of "human rights" is a system of belief, born out of our culture. Certainly there have been plenty of cultures which have not accepted any of the principles which we want to "defend" today.

On some level, the concept of "human rights" is a claim that our cultural beliefs are better, and more right, then those that do not agree with them.

Since there is no absolute source of right and wrong in the universe, our own beliefs are the best we've got. And there are certain things that we believe so strongly, that we are willing to impose them on others. What gives us the right to do this? That we are stronger. Nothing else.

We ought to see this for what it is, and stop feeling bad about it.

Re:Is there a difference?

[Alphanos]

Since there is no absolute source of right and wrong in the universe, our own beliefs are the best we've got.

Interestingly, your statement disproves itself. There must be a standard of objective absolute truth, because if there was not, then it would be objectively, absolutely true that objective truth does not exist, which is a contradiction. Therefore there exists at least some truth that is objective (ie. true in all places, at all times, for all people). Whether or not human rights are one of the objective truths is a separate matter.

Re:Is there a difference?

[heironymouscoward]

Actually, there is a fairly universal concept of "right" and "wrong" with respect to human society. Human culture is not infinitely plastic. It is a product, invariably, of a standard human nature.

All cultures have similar kinds of internal conflicts, and the most classic one is between the individual and the "state", or the larger group.

And all states go through phases where they try to assert more control over the individual than is healthy. An extreme case would be North Korea. Such excessive control is so uneconomical that we eventually get a balance of power in which the state provides individuals with liberty in return for taxes and basic obedience.

When we seek to "impose our standards" on other states, all we're doing is saying: "hey, it's pointless to kill your dissidents and hang your thieves, pointless to ban women from education and turn religion into a tool of mind control..." We say this because we've been through it, and know that it's bad stuff.

Re:Is there a difference?

[Rakshasa Taisab]

If something cannot exists, it must exists because it cannot exists?...

I fail to follow your logic, care to elaborate?

Re:Is there a difference?

[Rhesus Piece]

Ah. I think there is a difference in words here. He seems to be using "right" and "wrong" to mean "morally correct" and "morally incorrect". You seem to be interpreting them to mean "objectively correct" and "objectively incorrect". By your interpretation of the words, yes a contradiction. By his, however, all seems well by my logic checker dealie.

Re:Is there a difference?

[Dr Tall]

I think he's talking about absolute statements. Such as, "It is impossible to prove anything" which cannot be proven true, because for it to be true, you must have proved something.

Or, take this true or false question.
T/F: This statement is false.

Re:Is there a difference?

[hanssprudel]

I was talking about moral right and wrong, not logical. I dont think anybody is arguing that net censorship is logically wrong (hard, maybe, but obviously theoretically possible).

Re:Is there a difference?

[Guppy06]

"Certainly there have been plenty of cultures which have not accepted any of the principles which we want to "defend" today."

Just because a few despotic governments deny their people these rights does not mean the culture itself is what is doing the denying.

"On some level, the concept of "human rights" is a claim that our cultural beliefs are better, and more right, then those that do not agree with them."

One of the founding tennants of the UN, which everybody supposedly signed on to and which has been ignored ever since, has been the right to self-determination. Essentially this means people should be free to choose how they live their lives on their own. What we call "human rights" are essentially the ability for a people to decide whether or not they want to be "oppressed" in any particular way instead of having their governments make up their minds for them.

In other words, the difference between S&M and rape.

You seem to be victim of the same logical fallacy that dominates international diplomacy today: Just because a group of people are in charge of a country does not mean they truly represent the people of that country.

"And there are certain things that we believe so strongly, that we are willing to impose them on others."

There is a difference between not wanting to know and not being allowed to know. In the case of free speech on the internet, making this information available to the people is the only way to know which of the two options the people truly want.

Re:Is there a difference?

[lp-habu]

Actually, there is a fairly universal concept of "right" and "wrong" with respect to human society. Human culture is not infinitely plastic. It is a product, invariably, of a standard human nature.

And that explains why we all agree on these things right? Well, at least all of us enlightened types who think this way agree on it. And that's all that counts.

Right?

We say this because we've been through it, and know that it's bad stuff.

I.e., we know better than you. And we know better 'cause we are better. And we are better 'cause we learned better. And we know we learned better just because.

Right?

Re: Is there a difference?

[Gall]

... at least some truth that is objective (ie. true in all places, at all times, for all people).

Just as a matter of clarification `objectively true,' when talking about moral judgements, does not mean `true in all places, at all times, for all people.' In moral philosophy, this is what `absolute' truth means. `Objectively true,' on the other hand, simply means that there exist standards upon which everyone does or should reasonably agree for determining the truth of any statement in its domain.

Re:Is there a difference?

[m.koch]

Actually, there is a fairly universal concept of "right" and "wrong" with respect to human society.

Of course there is a universal concept of "right" and "wrong". The real question is what is part of this concept?
Mankind has lived without a 'Magna Charta' for thousands of years and it remains to be proven that our specific moral viewpoint is better than others. If there is an universal truth, it has to be true for everyone at any time. But more often than not, 'universal truth' is just an instrument to impose opinions on other people.

Re:Is there a difference?

[yintercept]

I am not sure why people are modding your post down. The post did a nice job of being an entry point into discussing the article without being flaimbait.

What gives us the right to do this? That we are stronger.

I think the article is touching on something slightly larger than American culture v. the world. They are touching on the fact that if you have a system where people have access to a global media, then you will end up losing a great deal of what you consider to be your own local culture. To prevent this from happening (i.e., to preserve your culture...) you have to curtail human rights. This is not quite an "our army is bigger than your army" issue. It is a little bit more of whether or not the "world culture" should dominate your local culture.

Accepting human rights pretty much takes the ability to completely define culture out of the hands of any given authority. If your belief system demands a general authority then the global culture will always be a horrible shock.

Re:Is there a difference?

[the gnat]

It is a little bit more of whether or not the "world culture" should dominate your local culture.

Sorry, but I don't think the Saudis or Chinese are blocking the Net just because they're afraid of "Friends" or "Entertainment Weekly." And even if they were, I do not believe this would justify censorship. People should be free to make their own decisions what culture to adopt, not forced into it by the government.

Accepting human rights pretty much takes the ability to completely define culture out of the hands of any given authority. If your belief system demands a general authority then the global culture will always be a horrible shock.

Yeah, well, tough. I'm not a cheerleader for the way in which the USA often acts abroad, but I have no qualms about saying that our overall principles of individual liberty and cultural/religious pluralism are superior to those of repressive nations where authority is all-important. Although I personally find the practices of, say, Wahabi Islam to be oppressive and absurd, I don't have any problem with Saudis continuing to follow it, but I refuse to enable their government to force it upon the populace. And, on the flipside, I think Falun Gong is a joke, but I don't think the Chinese government should be beating, imprisoning, or killing its practitioners.

Re:Is there a difference?

[yintercept]

I don't think the Saudis or Chinese are blocking the Net just because they're afraid of "Friends" or "Entertainment Weekly."

I don't think they are censoring because they necessarily dislike the ideas they see. I think they censor because they want the power to define their society.

BTW, it is amazing the large amount of literature in the west about the need for the rulers to produce propaganda and to define public opinion. This is a basic tenet of the Straussians on the right and many liberal groups on the left. Much of Machiavelli's writings were about propaganda. The US is often held up as being one of the most successful propagandists in history. For example, the US defined Native Americans as savage, then created publicly popular attrocities against the disparged group.

Accepting the hacker mantality really destroys the ability of the propagandists to control...unless, of course, you create a mechanism to control the opinions of the hackers.

There's also a large number of groups that try to define the world on a global level. The Catholic Church can often be held up as an example of a universal authority.

There are many people who are trained to see the world in the form of power relations. I suspect that in the mind's eye of the clerics in Iran, acknowledging human rights is simply a transfer of power from the clerics to the Catholic Church and US. The acknowledgement of the individual doesn't even come into view as they would see individuals as the illusion.

Re:Is there a difference?

[WNight]

It's pretty easy to objectively look at a secular-ish society like much of Europe or North America and say that it is in almost all ways better than a fundemantalist repressive, often religious, state.

Compare Sweden to Iran, or Canada to North Korea. Or even the USA to China.

Few people get hauled out at night and shot in the back of the head. Most people are free to say what they think, anything from bizarre politics to advocating child-adult sex.

People have much more of a say in how the country is run and even in fairly socialist countries they have a lot of economic freedom and wealth.

History hasn't shown that communism is flawed, contrary to popular belief. What it has shown is that close-minded repressive societies are flawed. Look at China, once a world power, now a maker of plastic toys. Look at Russia, once a world power, now what...? Look at the Middle-East - a fifteen-hundred years ago it was the center of the educated world. Now it's a hell-hole full of martyr-wannabees.

Nothing against the people, it's the environments. Russia is lucky that they don't have a religion or tradition of obediance to authority that held them back. China's *slowly* crawling forward. The Middle-East is a write-off.

It's simplistic and harmful to suggest that ideas of Iran, or Saudi Arabia for examples, are on a level with those of more free and democratic nations. The people there want to get around the censorship, but the government surely must know what's best.

Re:Is there a difference?

[WNight]

If the 'culture' believes that individuals should choose, let them. If it believes that the citizens should follow government rule, make them choose.

But I think basic human rights should include the right to uncensored information, the right to leave a country (petition someone else to take you). And the right to freedom of thought - religion or otherwise.

If your citizens can read and believe what they want and have a realistic chance to leave, you can safely assume you aren't mistreating them too much if they stay.

This is far from universal though.

Re:Is there a difference?

[STrinity]

Actually, there is a fairly universal concept of "right" and "wrong" with respect to human society.

You mean like how the Romans believed the head of a household had total power over his family and could kill his children if they displeased him or cost too much money?

Re:Is there a difference?

[geekee]

"Since there is no absolute source of right and wrong in the universe, our own beliefs are the best we've got. And there are certain things that we believe so strongly, that we are willing to impose them on others. What gives us the right to do this? That we are stronger. Nothing else."

There are fundamental human rights that can be determined through REASON, the same way science is able to determine objective principles. These are objective principles, relying on facts, not beliefs. The include the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The fact is, you do not have a right that infringes on the rights of another. I'm not going to claim another culture is right if they claim the Earth is flat, so why should I respect another cultures right to infringe on the basic rights of its citizens?

Re:Is there a difference?

[geekee]

The problem with your statement is that you assume moral rights cannot be objective, but are inherently based on beliefs. Morality can and should be objective, and should be based on facts and logic, in short, reason.

Re:Is there a difference?

[crucini]

Two problems with this argument:

People from Iran, for example, don't necessarily feel that first world countries are better. In many cases they long to go home. People usually go to first world countries for education, money, or to flee political turmoil. They frequently feel that their home countries are more virtuous, stable and sensible and have better food.

Our western recipe for success doesn't really work. It requires turning all the housewives into realtors or project managers or something, and leaving TV and the streets to raise the kids. It requires importing women from traditional cultures to play Mom for kids of the affluent. It requires poor and repressive countries to make our stuff. We're phenomenally good at inventing, colonizing, owning, conquering; but not at much else.

Second, these third world countries are not as hellish as you're portraying. People generally aren't shot in the back of the head. The middle east isn't a hellhole for the people that live there, although it might be for a transplanted American. Many Palestinians have houses, cars, refrigerators and olive groves, a fact I only discovered when reading how the Israelis destroy these things.

Most people are free to say what they think, anything from bizarre politics to advocating child-adult sex.

I think that most people in the world do not want or approve this kind of freedom. People are generally very happy to see dissidents with bizarre politics punished. Ask any Chinese person about Falun Gong. If the US rounded up all the Scientologists and shot them, I think it would gain more popularity than any tax cut.

Personally, I'm a product of the West and wouldn't be happy in a traditional regime. But I realize that people raised in them may feel differently.

Re:Is there a difference?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Destruction of marriage

Yeah with those gays getting married, suddenly all these straight marriages are failing left and right. What a mess!

shapping society into their whims

Yeah. The conservatives have never ever done that. The religous right in particular is completely against the concept of shaping anyone to their whims.

legalizing drug

Yeah, those evil potsmokers... wrecking the private lives of everyone else. Mass chaos and destruction abound.

loose morals

Yeah, conseratives would never do something completely immoral, like, say, lie to start a war based on ulterior motives. Never.

individualism over the benefit of the majority

Yep. Now that's a completely unamerican concept if I've ever heard it. We need to return this country to its original ideals of things like blind and complete allegiance to our leaders and complete subordination of individal liberty.

Re:Is there a difference?

[WNight]

How can you say that people CHOOSE a non-democratic government? Did they pick Saddam out of a lineup? Even if he had some support, was it merely because he was the best of the bad?

Anyways, most of the resistance to US occupation in Iraq is religious in nature. Who else would be stupid enough to strap a bomb to themselves?

As for the Kurds, they've got a lot better chance with US or UN occupation and oversight than they did under Saddam or under a theocracy.

Re:Is there a difference?

[WNight]

I'm not saying third-world countries are hell-holes. I'm saying that specific totalitarian or theocratic countires are hell-holes.

And no, most people don't get shot in the back of the head. They've learned to keep their head down, never to speak up, never to try to get ahead, never to try to question. It's only people who try to determine the course of their own life who have problems. Wonderful. And yeah, sure, it's not like the only thought in their heads are of oppression. I'm sure most days they just want to get home to dinner.

Does that mean they've got government they like, or merely that they've learned to avoid pissing anyone off?

I'm not advocating that everyone follows US values as you imply. I'm merely advocating that people get to choose how they want to live their lives. If they freely choose (minus unjust persecution should they decide otherwise) to be part of the religious majority, let them. But if they don't have a choice it's evil of you to imply that they somehow picked their situation. It's the new-age party line; "Interference is evil, *they* choose to live like that."

As for most people not wanting freedom of thought for others, tough. That's simply their stupidity in not realizing that their good and normal thoughts are someone else's heresy. If they want to be allowed to follow their stupid little religions they have to accept my godlessness and vice versa. Otherwise we'd be nothing but a collection of third-world hell-holes murdering each other over what flavour of god we had. Besides, I think the fact that the governments in these countries are cracking down on sources of outside information proves that the people are not happy to be told what to think, despite what their leaders would like to suggest.

I'm sure the muslim women who are stoned to death for being raped choose to be there...

Re:Is there a difference?

[WNight]

And yet if you have to keep someone ignorant to keep them part of your culture that your culture is sick.

Let people subscribe to the censored internet feed if they feel the need to be protected. Let other people decide for themselves. If people immediately start dropping your culture and your religious when they see alternatives it means they didn't really want to be part of it.

It's really funny how people will accept "that's how they choose to live" to describe the squallor and brutality of many countries, yet wouldn't accept "I killed him to save his soul" or "we had to destroy the village to save it." I don't see much of a difference.

Re:Is there a difference?

[JuggleGeek]

How can you say that people CHOOSE a non-democratic government? Did they pick Saddam out of a lineup? Even if he had some support, was it merely because he was the best of the bad?

When we vote for president in the US, we, too, must choose from the best of the bad choices they give us.

Re:Is there a difference?

[yintercept]

if you have to keep someone ignorant to keep them part of your culture then your culture is sick.

Conversely, when people willing choose to be part of a subculture, then that subculture tends to be a lot stronger that it would have been with coerced membership.

Unfortunately, a great deal of literature on politics fails to realize either point.

Re:Is there a difference?

[WNight]

And with the upcoming election I'm sure more people will realize it.

I'd certainly like better representation and I work for it. Our systems are far from perfect but they're also far far better than what many people live in.

Re:Is there a difference?

[MisterSquid]

If the US rounded up all the Scientologists and shot them, I think it would gain more popularity than any tax cut.

I think you underestimate the commitment to the 1st Amendment many Americans have. Sure, I don't like (the stereotype of) Scientologists, but if the U.S. Goverment rounded them up and executed them I would be very angry, indeed.

Re:Is there a difference?

[Bush Pig]

Excellent implicit reference to Goedel, Alphanos.

I'm sick and tired of this post-modern new-age crap about the equivalence of belief systems, and the lack of a standard of objective truth (my ex-missus is a post-modernist ...). My belief system happens to include an acceptance of the law of gravitational attraction (among other physical laws, and yes, I realise that many of these are approximations). I challenge anyone who asserts the equivalence of all belief systems to jump from a high place, ansd then we can determine whether or not all beliefs are equally valid. However, I think the point will be of academic interest only.

Re:Is there a difference?

[fingerfucker]

Stop pretending you are philosopher and /.-carma-whoring on that.

Truth is a proposition that consorts with reality.

And you know as much about reality as I do.

By the token of your very same logic, there is no way to evaluate existence of absolute truth. Conclusion that absolute truth exists is yet another relative observation.

Re:Is there a difference?

[fingerfucker]

Morality can and should be objective, and should be based on facts and logic, in short, reason.

Ouch! To say how morality "should" or should not be is in itself a conviction based on your subjective cultural beliefs. Just because you want it to be something doesn't make it so quite yet.

In other news...

[wiresquire]

And in other news today, the Government announced that funding for the University of Toronto had been cut by 50%. A source that would not be identified believes that this is reliation for an effort by academics to reduce censorship of the internet.

An official spokesman at the Education Department could not be reached for comment.

Re:In other news...

[kungfuBreaks]

Actually, the parent referred to "the Government" and not "the US government".
Like all Canadian universities, UofT is a public institution, so the Canadian government certainly does fund it.

Re:In other news...

[AndroidCat]

Education is a provincial matter in Canada, so more likely the government of Ontario. However the provincial legislature (Queen's Park) sits on land that the University of Toronto owns. (Previously the site of a mental institution. Another one, that is.) The lease is probably one of those 99 years for a dollar deals, but those run out eventually. (Under British law, 99 years used to be the max limit for those kind of contracts.)

They are not imposing values

[Tango42]

"Are they defending human rights, or simply trying to impose their own beliefs on people from other cultures?" Censorship is imposing your values on others, stopping censorship is not. Stopping people hiding information does not force them to have your values.

Re:They are not imposing values

[Tim C]

Well, technically, you're imposing your value on them that censorship is a bad thing and should not be practiced.

Re:They are not imposing values

[mblase]

Stopping people hiding information does not force them to have your values.

Well, it does if their values include hiding information from other people.

Re:They are not imposing values

[Tango42]

No. They can still belive that censorship is a good thing if they want to. Imposing your values means forcing people to share you values, normally by not letting them know there is an alternative, or sometimes by killing them. Without censorship people can belive what they like (they may not be able to do it, but that's not the point), with censorship, they can't.

Re:They are not imposing values

[STrinity]

Well, technically, you're imposing your value on them that censorship is a bad thing and should not be practiced.

Mmm, ethical solipsism. It's like 10th Grade all over again.

Re:They are not imposing values

[geminidomino]

Mmm, ethical solipsism. It's like 10th Grade all over again. Maybe this time around I'll have a shot at Tara's great rack!

the preserving culture argument

[tuxette]

"Saudi Arabia says explicitly that they censor the internet to preserve their Islamic culture and heritage, which is a pretty valid claim to make," explained the lab's Graeme Bunton.

I disagree. If what Saudi citizens find out about other places via the Internet causes them to reject their Islamic culture and heritage, then perhaps it's a culture and heritage not worth preserving in the first place.

There are plenty of countries that are online, for the most part uncensored, and are able to maintain their culture. Next lame attempt at an argument, please?

Re:the preserving culture argument

[SmackCrackandPot]

I disagree. If what Saudi citizens find out about other places via the Internet causes them to reject their Islamic culture and heritage, then perhaps it's a culture and heritage not worth preserving in the first place.

In this case, having a country run by a ruling royal family may not be very democratic, but it's probably better than having an anti-western fundamentalist state.

Re:the preserving culture argument

[BCoates]

Er, except right now they're a anti-western fundamentalist state run by a ruling royal family.

Re:the preserving culture argument

[themusicgod1]

In defense of islam
At my job I see the 12-14 year old crowd who universally use MSN and who's parents think that MSN IS the totality that is referred to as 'internet chat'(and vice versa), and I wonder that perhaps, there are things worth perserving although to the unindoctrinated they may seem uninteresting. Sure, linux has MSN clients. but for how long? How long until it is illegal under the DMCA, or worse law, to write a MSN 'chat' client? and then how long after that until the youth of, for example, the united states all have been brainwashed by Microsoft commercials that internet chat IS MSN?, and that no other kind of internet chat is internet chat, and worth using? Granted, MSN may be a particularily useful program, but don't you think the reason it's popualrity might be because it comes by default on every computer that you can buy, and every computer that you will probably use, growing up?
Or you could go with a relatively standard protocol with free clients like say, IRC, or *gasp* email. or whatever the next generation will come up with.

Re:the preserving culture argument

[moviepig.com]

"Saudi Arabia says explicitly that they censor the internet to preserve their Islamic culture and heritage, which is a pretty valid claim to make," explained the lab's Graeme Bunton.

"Preservation of culture" is the province of museums, and cultural terrariums like Colonial Williamsburg.

Moreover, it's anathema to a living, evolving society. (This is true even in the good ol' USA, as with Wal-Mart vs. Smallville.) You can't legislate nostalgia.

Re:the preserving culture argument

[Spellbinder]

i would call it a anti-western fundamentalist state run by pro-western a ruling royal family.

Re:the preserving culture argument

[Crixus]

Agreed.

"Any system that can not withstand scrutiny is a system not worth having." (paraphrased)

-Carl Sagan

Re:the preserving culture argument

[Surt]

Except that the ruling royal family has been caught repeatedly funding anti-western fundamentalist terrorists.

Re:the preserving culture argument

[kisak]

While Bush again supports his friends the Saudis by stating that "there ought to be limits to freedom".

Re:the preserving culture argument

[the gnat]

The only adjective that applies to the royal family is "corrupt." They can't be trusted in the slightest. Unfortunately, they've proven such good salespeople here in America that they tend to get a pass for all the dumb shit they're getting away with back home. The family is also too big to act monolithically; there are undoubtedly some very pro-Western members (many of whom are frequently in the US), but many others who lurk at home and fund suicide bombers.

Re:the preserving culture argument

[peragrin]

How is that In defense of Islam???

All strong religous beliefs need something. Constant repeating of the beleifs. Doesn't matter if your a jew, Catholic, christian,or Muslim. Every preacher does one thing. Endless repeat the exact same thing over and over.

If the Internet or any other media can cause someone to doubt their beliefs then those beliefs may have holes. If knowledge can cause beliefs to change then that can be a good thing.
Remember it took catholics 400 years to apologize for killing Galielo. What did Galielo do? said the earth revolved around the sun. Just because a religion has spouted it for centries doesn't make it fact.

Re:the preserving culture argument

[STrinity]

It's a mistake to treat the House of Saud as a single rational actor. It's a huge family that's best compared to the Mafia at the height of its power, or the power players of Renaissance Italy. There are some factions that are genuinely pro-Western, and others that just pretend to be while financing fundamentalism.

Re:the preserving culture argument

[themusicgod1]

Isn't "Endless repeat the exact same thing over and over." Exactly what mathematics and deductive reasoning is? only, shorthand and with suitable notation? (ie if you have a proof that uses lines 1-50 which proves P->Q, you can say P->Q instead of reiteration of all these lines...but...this just stands for the insertion of these lines into this other place).

Absolutely: there's a good chance that if the internet causes doubts in beliefs that the beliefs may have holes.
1) since no one yet knows everything, every set of beliefs has holes. science does not know if anything happened before the big bang, or what the universe is like on the smallest scale, how the strings in string theory work, or even if they've figured out these things and I'm just not yet aware of them there are plenty of other things out there that are uknown, some of which, due to the uncertianty principle and the incompleteness theorem will always remain unknown.

2) since i'm not actually disagreeing here, once again: there are some cases where the right thing isn't learned, the wrong thing is taught, outright lies, etc. and in some of those cases it is the 'other/incorrect religion/culture' that is teaching these things. my little sister had a friend who thought that AIDS was not a STD but that it only happened to bad people, and that they got what they deserve, from GOD. My sister, as smart as she was, hanging around with this person long enough could easily have picked up some religious bullshit form her. not because her existing background of beleifs was wrong, or even had holes, but because she as a person has not had a chance to fully take part in the background of beliefs that had awaited her.

and even if you don't accept that example, believe me, brainwashing does happen. there are plenty of religious programming schools out there at least in canada that seek to undermine young peoples conceptions of reality and re-fill it with their own ideals. The military, last time i checked to some extent tries to brainwash their inputted young men into killing machines. When you've been awake for >100 hours in a row it's amazing things what kind of beliefs will have holes in them, and when drugs are involved, there is pretty much nothing that can stand up.
"After 16 years of service / and a family to support / he actually is starting to believe / the weaponry and chemicals are for national defense / 'cause danny has a morgage and a boss to awnser to / the guilty don't feel guilty they learn not to"-nofx, the irrationality of rationality.

Canadian TV censorship

[AtariAmarok]

University of Toronto? Interesting, considering the "Canadian Content"-based censorship laws in Canada, where foreign stations are banned (censored) due to lack of "Canadian Content".

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[bigberk]

Are you kidding me? I live in Canada and all I see is American content -- radio stations are full of American music, television is all American shows, and the products we buy are all American. Where's the censorship? It's obviously not working.

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[nodwick]

Are you kidding me? I live in Canada and all I see is American content -- radio stations are full of American music, television is all American shows, and the products we buy are all American. Where's the censorship? It's obviously not working.

Despite living in Canada, you're apparently not aware that the law requires that 35% of popular music selections broadcast by commercial AM and FM radio stations each broadcast week must be Canadian selections". American TV cable stations are permitted, but satellite TV is not for similar reasons.

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[themusicgod1]

University of Toronto != Canadian Government

The University itself may have its own problems with censorship, but at least get the organization right.

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[antiMStroll]

Foreign stations are banned here? Well that finally explains the mile-high Gauss screen along the border from Pacific to Atlantic. And here I thought it had something to do with bird migration.

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[AtariAmarok]

I never said that the college was part of the government; it does not matter in an argument pointing out a major content-censorship problem in the country.

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[THotze]

Actually, there _is_ a minimum Canadian content. You might not notice it because the line between Canadian and American content is sometimes intentionally blurred. I can't speak with great authory on the TV side, because I have no experience, but I do know something of the Canadian Content laws for radio, as I've helped a friend organize songs for a show on a local university radio station here (Carleton University's CKCU). 30% of all music played, by song, on a radio station must be Canadian - meaning, Canadian artist. I _believe_ that Canadian TV laws require principle Canadian actors, or writers, or producers, but I'm not 100% sure on that.

The idea is that because the Canadian music industry is smaller, and its harder for Canadian artists to tour, etc. and reach the same fame as foreign (read: US) ones, they need to be protected, because if Canadians artists aren't supported in Canada, they're less likely to be supported anywhere.

The result, however, is that lots of Canadian "filler" artists end up popping up - they're pop music that sounds like all other pop music, but it's CANADIAN filler. Other times, artists that make it in the US are WAAAY overplayed here (think, Avirl Lavigne, ALL THE TIME.) And, on occaison, there is a good Canadian artist/group that for some reason, can't seem to get a international record deal but does well in Canada.

Personally, I think that if Canada really wants to support its artists, they should do it willingly - that is, there'll be a demand for Canadian music. Perhaps TV/radio stations should make a voluntary industry pact, where stations can agree to Canadian content terms, and if they do, they can display a logo or something on their ads. If Canadians really care, they'll support the stations that have the logo; if not, then Canadian arists will have to prove themselves on the same terms as ones everywhere else, even if there is a bit of discrimination.

Tim

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[themusicgod1]

fair enough. We can only, then hope, that they turn their inspection of censorship onto themselves, and their nation.

although that might make it a little more challanging than they will be willing to accept.

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[iantri]

An explanation:

"Banned" is not the correct word.

Anyone broadcasting radio in Canada must provide 30% Canadian content (this is define as having at least one producer, musician, artist, etc.. it only has to be Canadian by a bit of a stretch). The rules are similar for television.

The government does not stop you from receiving signals broadcast over-the-air (VHF/UHF/AM/FM) from the States. Cable companies are allowed to rebroadcast these too. However they do stop you from receiving foreign satellite broadcasts, legally paid for or not (it seems this has a bit more to do with the Liberal government receiving a lot of money from Canadian satellite industry lobby groups, who stand to lose a lot from Canadians watching American TV. I'm not happy about this -- It makes my legally paid for C-band satellite system technically illegal.)

I don't like the Canadian content rules but I understand why they do it -- if they weren't there we would never see or hear any Canadian content, as generally the American stuff is better (with some exceptions).

Lots of American channels come to Canada.. CNN, Spike TV, A&E come to mind, and more recently MTV, TV Land and TechTV have become available (with 30% Canadian content added in). There are lots of others.

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[Neop2Lemus]

You know all those tv bits where they talk about fittness or some popular culture thing for 3 minutes between each program?

Thats Canadian content, we don't have enough fully Canadian TV shows so they fill in the time with that.

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[bigberk]

you're apparently not aware that the law requires ...

I'm aware of these guidelines, I'm just saying that they don't really have significant impact on what I end up seeing.

But the original issue was one of Canadian TV censorship -- which to me is still pretty funny. For example, our uber-popular comedy Trailer Park Boys is coming to the US, except they're going to have to censor the show for American viewers. (There's lots of drug use and swearing on the show). There's obviously more censorship in the US than in Canada. Superbowl boobies?

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[KillerCow]

The purpose of Canadian content legislation is to protect Canadian cultural industries. Given the size and monopolistic power of US cultural industries (TV, movies, music publishing, etc.) it is not likely that many Canadian sources could survive against them. Cancon is enacted to make sure that Canadian sources of culture remain available to Canadians. It does not "ban" foriegn content, but ensures that some percentage of content available is Canadian.

Canadian Content

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[Idarubicin]

Interesting, considering the "Canadian Content"-based censorship laws in Canada, where foreign stations are banned (censored) due to lack of "Canadian Content".

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

In order to preserve and stimulate Canadian cultural achievement--art, music, performance--in the face of the American entertainment behemoth, the Canadian federal government in their infinite wisdom chose to enact a series of provisions back in the 1960s to regulate the amount of Canadian content on Canadian broadcast radio and television. So far, this sounds like Saudi Arabia--you must have Canadian content, not that dirty American stuff.

The difference lies in degree and application. On Canadian radio, 35% of content must be Canadian. On Canadian television stations, something like 60% (50% from 6pm to midnight) of content must be Canadian. Detailed rules are here; there's a pretty good summary here, too. The rest of the content can be American, European, Asian, Australian...whatever you wish. I can watch The Simpsons and The Wonderful World of Disney on our national broadcaster (the CBC).

There are also no moral or religious restrictions on the content--Canadian or otherwise--beyond basic obscenity statutes that often seem noticeably less restrictive than those in the United States.

And you know what? The system works. There are more and better-known Canadian recording artists and actors than ever before, likely in large part due to CanCon requirements. Sure, some of them would have been recognized without it, but as a program to encourage Canadian artists, this one (incredibly) has worked.

The notion that 'foreign stations are banned' is patently ridiculous. If my cable provider supplies HBO, or CNN, or TNN, or A&E, or the History Channel--they don't have to delete 60% of the material and replace it with CanCon. NBC, CBS, ABC--all appear on Canadian cable and satellite unaltered (unfortunately or otherwise) from the channels seen in American markets.

Censorship? I don't think so.

And "Cheers!" to John Ashcroft. How's your quaint little shut-down-the-adult-film-industry crusade going?

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[Idarubicin]

The University itself may have its own problems with censorship, but at least get the organization right.

I was wondering how this was an issue of censorship...?

The meeting in question was of a pro-Palestinian group that demanded all attendees sign a pledge to support principles like "We support the right of the Palestinian people to resist Israeli and colonialism by any means of their choosing."

The University was only prepared to allow the meeting to proceed if the organizers allowed anyone to freely attend without signing a pledge first. In an institution that must be dedicated to academic and political freedom it would have been unconscionable to bar students who disagree on points of doctrine from attending. Indeed, it would have been an infringement of the constitutional rights of dissenters to freedom of speech and conscience.

Note that the University has a formal policy on the disruption of meetings--students who chose to attend would not have a free pass to disrupt proceedings, and would face sanctions from the University. Also, any students who freely chose to sign the pledge were welcome to do so.

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[astro-g]

We have a similar law in New Zealand.
but the percentage is much lower, I think its around 10%

However, the radio station I like to listen to, when I do listen to radio has boasted 20% NZ music, and started doing so before said laws came into effect.

Given the quality and volume of NZ music at the moment, its a very easy target to hit.

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[themusicgod1]

Now granted, I wasn't there : I heard about it second or third hand from student union representatives.

But you are trying to tell me that they demanded attendees sign a pledge that they would be in support of the rally(which is strange in one way, first that the people who are going to this rally are probably going to agree in the first place, and secondly, I don't think I've ever seen a protest group demand anything successfully in this way --- people who show up just don't sign, and do what they want.) The University, in my opinion, and I could very well be wrong, was not preventing the meeting on the grounds that it was preventing dissent, indeed the meeting itself was dissent, peaceful or not.

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[Idarubicin]

But you are trying to tell me that they demanded attendees sign a pledge that they would be in support of the rally

Yep, that's precisely what I'm saying. To even be admitted to the meeting, the organizers wanted to force attendees to sign a pledge supporting their cause.

The University, in my opinion, and I could very well be wrong, was not preventing the meeting on the grounds that it was preventing dissent, indeed the meeting itself was dissent, peaceful or not.

I'm having a bit of trouble parsing that sentence ;) but I think you've got the gist of it. The University blocked the meeting because of the pledge ("basis of unity") requirement, not because of the meeting content. Indeed, the meeting was allowed to go ahead once the pledge signing requirement was lifted. From an article in the U of T student newspaper The Varsity,

For the administration, the basis of unity was the sticking point. "That was the reason we cancelled it last weekend," noted Vice-Provost, Students David Farrar. According to Jamjoum, an agreement was reached in which the basis of unity was moved below the signature line in the conference's registration form, meaning participants would acknowledge that the conference organizers abided by the tenets, but they themselves need only respect the tenets, not agree with them.

Re:Canadian TV censorship

[AtariAmarok]

The purpose of Canadian content legislation is to protect Canadian cultural industries

Why not let the Canadians choose themselves what media to watch or not watch? Why should this be the business of cultural ayatollahs in the government? It shouldn't.

it is not likely that many Canadian sources could survive against them

In other words, Canadian artists are so inferior that they would not survive without protectionist government censorship to protect them? That is what you seem to be saying.

It does not "ban" foriegn content

Certainly it does: your message describes how the banning works and goes to justify it.

peekabooty?

[fatmoe2004]

Why is there no mention of peekabooty? it seems like a really good project

Re:peekabooty?

[Jane_Dozey]

Or the 6/4 project.

American technology is helping repress the Chinese

[rqqrtnb]

When I worked at GTE the company got the contract to lay the fiber optic cable around the border of China and put in the network centers that setup a ring around China. Total control of all the traffic in and out of the country, or so they hoped. A career limiting move came when I wrote Chuck Lee, CEO of GTE, and said we were helping the same Communist government that gave us Tianamen Square and would continue to repress the Chinese people using this technology. But Bean Counters only care about profit and damn the people that get get screwed over in the process.

As a side note, I knew a lad working near me from China who had been at Tianamen Square the day before and then the day after the massacre happened. When he saw what the army had done to their own people he went home, packed and left for Hong Kong and then to the US.

Censorship is only one way the Communists will use to stay in power and shooting another bunch of college kids can happen again.

Re:What Sla$hdot DOESNT want you know

[Anonymous Coward]

You are risking bringing the wrath of the Linux jihadists down on you. You are indeed brave.

If this were groklaw, your post would already be deleted.

Different cultural standards...

[heironymouscoward]

... are real of course.

What is not real is the suggestion that human liberty and freedom is culturally dependent. That is a lie used by repressive governments to justify policies that really only serve their own interests.

There have been many attempts in Western nations to repress individual rights because of the "common interest", and these rightly strike us as barbaric. No reason to apply different standards to other countries just because they are different.

However... the day I see an electorate in a "culturally different" country freely and democratically vote for a regime that restricts human rights, I'll change my mind.

Re:Different cultural standards...

[Jane_Dozey]

"There have been many attempts in Western nations to repress individual rights because of the "common interest", and these rightly strike us as barbaric."

Actually, they do. It's just most people don't notice them very much. I'm willing to bet that all Western nations have laws that repress induvidual rights because of the "common interest". Its just that most of the people living in those nations don't know about it and wouldn't do a whole lot about it even if they did.

Re:Different cultural standards...

[BCoates]

However... the day I see an electorate in a "culturally different" country freely and democratically vote for a regime that restricts human rights, I'll change my mind.

People do that all the time. Restricting the other guy's rights is one of the more popular political themes of the world--Both in the West and in the "Culturally Different" places. Democracy is useful, but it's not a magic wand that makes authoritarianism disappear.

Re:Different cultural standards...

[Spellbinder]

look at russia right now

Re:Different cultural standards...

[mpe]

What is not real is the suggestion that human liberty and freedom is culturally dependent. That is a lie used by repressive governments to justify policies that really only serve their own interests.

Left to their own devices most governments (and government menbers, especially where it is possible to create the job of "professional politican") will tend to do this. Many countries appear to lack effective means to prevent a repressive government comming in through the "back door".

There have been many attempts in Western nations to repress individual rights because of the "common interest", and these rightly strike us as barbaric.

Several of these attempts, even as recently as the last hundred years, have been sucessful. With the technique of "we need to restrict everyone's rights (except our own) to protect against some threat or other from #bad_people." still appears to work fairly well.

Re:Different cultural standards...

[Fnkmaster]

Unfortunately, you are wrong. There is a reason that the army in Turkey is charged with protecting democratic institutions by force if necessary. Left to their own devices and able to choose from all the candidates they want, many of the people in the country would vote in anti-democratic Islamic radical leaders. I recall on several occasions, the army has had to step in to the elections process to prevent this from happening.

What you mean to say is that well-educated people the world over realize that human liberty and freedom are in their interests. I'm sure the well-educated urban residents of Turkey don't want an Islamofascist government in power, but the uneducated, poor rural masses vote the way their local Mullah tells them to. After all, he couldn't be wrong, he speaks for Allah. And by no means is this kind of problem limited to Islamic countries - it's just tempered here in the West by a generally decent to mediocre educational system.

Look at the way people in New York City vote... now look at the way people in rural Alabama vote. Populist fear-mongering, religious zealotry and other anti-democratic forces exist in the US too, and they are part of our mainstream media and government as O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Ashcroft and so on. Leaders who think too much and analyze the details or specifics of a situation are derided as "wafflers".

Don't for a minute put too much trust in the forces of democracy. Democracy without education is just pure mob rule. Read Plato sometime - you'll realize the Greek word "tyrant" generally referred to a popularly chosen leader who exercised absolute power with the permission of the masses. Sometimes this was a good thing and sometimes it wasn't. It scares me that we accept democracy as an absolute good here in the US without realizing all the prerequisites required to make democracy a working system. And sometimes we forget that the majority isn't always right - just because people get what they want doesn't mean they get what's good for them.

Re:Different cultural standards...

[mpe]

Restricting the other guy's rights is one of the more popular political themes of the world--Both in the West and in the "Culturally Different" places. Democracy is useful, but it's not a magic wand that makes authoritarianism disappear.

Actually democracy can be highly effective at dealing with authoritarian governments before they become a danger to both their own citizens and the rest of the planet. The problem is that too many people equate democracy with elections. Even elections where there is either only one candidate or all the candidates are so similar you might as well cast a vote at random.

Re:Different cultural standards...

[One Louder]

However... the day I see an electorate in a "culturally different" country freely and democratically vote for a regime that restricts human rights, I'll change my mind.

The founders of the United States evidentally believed it was a strong possibility that a demographic majority would use democracy to suppress the rights of others. The first ten amendments to the Constituion - The Bill or Rights - were passed specifically to protect the minority from the oppression of the majority.

Despite that, the United States managed to legally keep people in slavery for a long time, and even once they were freed, abused the democratic system to keep them from voting for another hundred years.

Re:Different cultural standards...

[Law-Eagle]

"However... the day I see an electorate in a "culturally different" country freely and democratically vote for a regime that restricts human rights, I'll change my mind."

This is a very interesting and sweeping statement. I'd be interested to know what you _mean_ by "human rights". I politely request you to read more history and political current affairs. You will find that you "need to change your mind" pretty much immediately.

Re:Different cultural standards...

[ahodgson]

Yep.

Smoked any pot lately?

How about refused to pay the extortion fee your government calls taxes?

Or maybe you've driven your car without wearing a seatbelt?

All crimes in most supposedly free countries.

Face value...

[Faust7]

"Citizens can't just accept technology at face value."

*looks at Windows-loaded PCs on Best Buy shelf*

Ohhhhh yes they can.

Re:Face value...

[Cyno01]

heh

Misguided

[JayBlalock]

"Saudi Arabia says explicitly that they censor the internet to preserve their Islamic culture and heritage, which is a pretty valid claim to make," explained the lab's Graeme Bunton.

No it's not. If Islam was a dying thing, like say the aboriginal cultures in Australia, then perhaps there would be an argument there. But religions are always passing converts back and forth. At the moment, IIRC, Islam has some of the highest conversion rates TO it. Which means "Islamic culture" is really in very little danger of going away, and there's no need to "preserve" it.

Plus, cultures are evolving things. American, Chinese, Islamic, whoever. Compare the governments in the Middle East around 1500 to what we have today. You could easily make the arguement that getting rid of the Princes and opening the country up is REALLY preserving Islamic Culture. (preserving it from the corrupt clerics, of course) It's all just a front for cynical politicians to control their populations in the name of God. As far as I'm concerned, the Chinese have more moral justification, since they're just operating under the "It's my party..." defense.

(disclaimer: respects all religions, disrespects all hypocrits)

Re:Misguided

[Thanatopsis]

Compare the governments in the Middle East around 1500 to what is in the Middle East today. Why they are EXACTLY the same! Corrupt kings running countries like their personal fiefdoms.

Re:Misguided

[JayBlalock]

Please go read a book on the societies of Europe and the Middle East circa 1500 before posting again.

Thank you.

Re:Misguided

[THotze]

I'm always kind of irked by the "protecting culture and heritage" argument. You could argue that hertiage is heritage, good, bad or ugly, and nothing in the future can change that, but the more important word is "culture."

I don't think that most people really think of what any given culture is and has been historically. Culture has ALWAYS spread, mingled, and intermixed, more or less to the extent that any given era's technology allows it to. How else is the Spanish word for money - "dinero", so similar to "dinar," a common name for currency in the Middle East?

Take another example. What could be a more solidly cultural experience than food? Then ever wonder why Italian food has generous portions of noodles, an idea they got from China, and tomatoes, native only to the Americas?

Sure, the Italians CHANGED the way they're prepared, and they mixed the two in a way that only they, at the time, could think of. But that proves my point.... a more recent example is Japan. Japan's economy and culture have undergone EXTREME westernization in the past 100 years, and 50 years especially. Now in Japan they have western style dress, and music, etc., but they've also put a Japanese "spin" on it.

Cultures aren't these unique little things that exist in isolation - cultures are made to mix, spread, mingle, and combine in the way that the people in the cultures see fit. And don't forget that cultural values help determine what cultures "see fit" to mix.

Tim

Re:Misguided

[maxpublic]

If Islam was a dying thing, like say the aboriginal cultures in Australia, then perhaps there would be an argument there.

No, it would not be a valid argument. If exposure to ideas and information outside the culture results in the collapse of that culture, then it wasn't worth supporting in the first place. That culture deserves to die and be replaced with something more robust.

Max

Re:Misguided

[JayBlalock]

That is a flawed argument. Examine the various implications of the word "deserves."

Also consider that, by that same basic logic, we all deserve to die of viruses if they are more capable than our immune systems. Would you argue that medicine is just immorally saving the lives of people who are getting in the way of evolution?

Any system, no matter how robust, can be susceptible to outside factors. That does not mean these outside factors "deserve" survival more; they are simply the newest thing and must be evaluated in and of themselves.

Re:Misguided

[maxpublic]

we all deserve to die of viruses if they are more capable than our immune systems. Would you argue that medicine is just immorally saving the lives of people who are getting in the way of evolution?

Strawman argument, and completely, utterly irrelevant to the point being made.

Cultures are vital things. Those that refuse to adapt, die, and are replaced with something more capable of dealing with current conditions. Trying to impose stasis in a changing world is the game of fools, or of dictators invested only in preserving the status quo to their own benefit. Denying people access to 'outside factors' is just another way of trying to keep folks from rocking the apple cart, just because you like the way the apples are being distributed.

Max

Re:Misguided

[BCoates]

Cultures aren't people, they're things, and when they no longer justify the costs of their own existence, they should go away. It's wrong to save a culture at the expense of the people in it, if they'd rather be doing something else.

Languages, for example, are dying out all the time, and that's a shame, but keeping a language alive is a tremendous amount of work, and people won't do it unless there's some benefit to them (like being able to communicate with a large group of other people)

Re:Misguided

[Bellwether80]

Perhaps I might be able to lend some insight into this quote, seeing as I said it.

What you are missing is the word 'their', I did not say that they perserving ALL Islamic culture, but their own. It is a sovereign nation entitled to their own way of life, like any other nation. Their culture doesn't even have to be in danger of dying, they can merely be trying to strengthen it.

I don't live in Saudi Arabia, and i suspect you don't either - so who is either of us to say what is best for them?

What it ultimately boils down to is that we in the lab are engaged in academic research and we need to be critical of our sources and ourselves - these debates helps us maintain as best we can a balanced perspective.

Re:Misguided

[LPetrazickis]

So, in other words, conditions everywhere must become the same and humanity everywhere must become the same perfect counter to those conditions so that we may be wiped out by a fast change in the conditions.

Evolution-wise -- and you are applying an evolutionary model here -- being perfectly adapted is a bad thing. You become dependent on a niche that might disappear at any moment.

Re:Reap what you Sow

[Anonymous Coward]

THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO CHANGE THINGS !!!!

Tell that to the North Koreans who are horribly tortured for speaking out, or even being merely accused of speaking out.

Tell that to the Chinese students who wanted more freedom and met up with an army of tanks!

You sir are an idiot.

Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[Sanity]

On some level, the concept of "human rights" is a claim that our cultural beliefs are better, and more right, then those that do not agree with them.

What a wonderful justification for oppression: People want to be oppressed! Lets see you explain that to the family of one of the Chinese students who died in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Every sane person, regardless of their culture, wants the right to express their own opinions and to exercise control over their own lives. Yours is just a pathetic excuse for the complicity our governments have in the oppression of those in other countries.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[aardvarkjoe]

What a wonderful justification for oppression...

...And your post is a wonderful example of how slashdotters like to misrepresent the people they're arguing with. I'd bet ten to one that the parent poster believes in human rights.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[hanssprudel]

I never claimed that such things could be justified because people wanted to be oppressed. Who said that it is right that people should get what they want, anyways?

I did not in any way endorse complicity with such governments. Read my last sentence again. I do not presume to know what "every sane person wants", and I am naturally skeptical of such claims (religious fundamentalists will also tell you what every sane person believes), but I know what I believe, and I know that those beliefs are, at least to some extent, shared by enough people and resources that those beliefs are mighty.

The only justification we have for stopping Hitler, or Bin Laden, or Hussein, is because we want to, and because we can. Nothing else.

When I equate human rights with imposing our culture on others, I do so not say that we should stop protecting human rights, but that we should stop being ashamed of imposing our cultures on others.

We do impose our culture on others. And we should. It is better (in our opinion).

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[themusicgod1]

"...Every sane person, regardless of their culture, wants the right to express their own opinions..." I wish. from the dozens of aol users I know who just couldn't give a rats ass about aol censoring them to the people who have to be always politically correct (lest they offend someone) to the hundreds of other examples i've run into, people, as a rule, want to be opressed. at least in Canada/the United States. When given a choice between a government that will not opress them, and one that will tax them less(ie pay them more) they will invariably vote the later. This is why say a third of the people I have dealt with at my job have wanted to make sure that there is censorship controls on the internet terminals we have.

The liberal government here in Canada right now is spending billions of dollars on pre-election last minute suprise initiatives in key non-liberal voting areas. There's millions of dollars going into this city(Regina) to dig a big hole, that will be filled with water, begin to stink, and need to be redug in 10 years. Do you think any person in this city in their right mind is going to vote against the complete destruction of the charter of rights and freedoms that the past 5 liberal anti-terror bills has created, and this tradition?,of course not. people, here, at least, want censorship(to protect the children), want no freedom of expression, preferring instead to stick with expert opinion, and generally want a police state, to protect them. And yes, there are threats out there to be protected from(gangs, etc), but to suggest that what the people want is not protection from them, or not protection from them if it means loss of freedom is in sheer contradiction with the state of affairs. or do you disagree? in an ideal world, you would be right, but unfortunately, I sure as hell don't live in that world.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[One Louder]

Every sane person, regardless of their culture, wants the right to express their own opinions and to exercise control over their own lives.

But you'd be amazed how many of those very same people also want to prevent others from expressing their opinions or exercise control over their own lives.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[Sanity]

We do impose our culture on others. And we should. It is better (in our opinion).

Your assumption that political freedom is an inherent part of our culture is naively arrogant, I am sure there were many Germans in the 1920s that thought the same thing about their culture.

On the contrary, western culture has not prevented our governments from actively supporting oppression in other countries in many cases.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[hanssprudel]

Who cares where it comes from? The fact is that I, today, believe that people should be free to rule themselves to the greatest extent possible. The Nazi's or Taleban (*) did not believe this. What makes me "right" and them "wrong"? NOTHING.

What justifies me going to war against them to impose my beliefs about freedom on their country? That I can, and that I will.

My point in this whole discussion has been that the question asked in the topic is stupid.

(*) Sanity has declared opposition using Godwin's law to terminate discussions. I am using the Nazi's here only because most people agree that letting them be (even if they had let us be) would be wrong. Neither the Nazi's or the Taleban were attacked until they attacked the rest of the world, of course - I argue that they should have been and we wouldnt have needed to apologize for it.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[An Onerous Coward]

Your comment is pointless and illogical, and I demand that CmdrTaco delete it forthwith.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[Atroxodisse]

Every time you open your mouth you are expressing your opinion in some way and trying to influence others. Even simple statements like "I'm hungry" in some way influences others. You are taking what you consider human rights for granted. There are lots of people that don't believe in human rights. Many cultures don't even believe in a right to live. They will kill other members of their society to ensure the survival of the whole. In no way did he state that people want to be opressed. Nor is it a justification for it. In fact it is quite the opposite. We all have a survival instinct but people in some cultures are more willing to accept the doctrine of their society than we do. As we become more intelligent and knowledgeable we come to understand our world better and see lies for what they are. This is what differentiates the more advanced societies. If our concept of human rights isn't a statement that our culture is better, then there is no reason to go into other countries and help out the oppressed. Its called cultural relativism. You can not accept relativism because it is logically flawed. If there is no right and wrong, then there is nothing. There is no reason for me to not kill someone who pisses me off. There is no reason for me to not randomly punch people in the nose. You also completely contradicted yourself.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[geekee]

"Who cares where it comes from? The fact is that I, today, believe that people should be free to rule themselves to the greatest extent possible. The Nazi's or Taleban (*) did not believe this. What makes me "right" and them "wrong"? NOTHING."

No. There is a reason your beliefs are right and theirs are wrong. Your beliefs are rooted in the rational idea that there is an objective morality that gives individuals inalienable rights. You are correct that it doesn't matter whether the idea comes out of ancient Greece or a dissident in N. Korea, it's the right answer.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[Sanity]

And your post is a wonderful example of how slashdotters like to misrepresent the people they're arguing with.

As is yours. I never said that the original poster wanted to justify oppression, merely that this is what he was inadvertantly doing.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[Sanity]

What justifies me going to war against them to impose my beliefs about freedom on their country?

The fact that the occupants of that country would want you to remove their corrupt "leadership" - that is what justifies it.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[hanssprudel]

The fact that the occupants of that country would want you to remove their corrupt "leadership" - that is what justifies it.

a) You have still not said what, outside your personal morality and beliefs, makes this so.

b) So you are saying it is wrong to attack a country if the government has popular support? Say that they decided to kill off 5% of the population, and the majority supported it (because majority is what you mean by "the occupants of that country", right? I want my current corrupt leadership removed, but I don't suppose that justifies anybody going to war against my country.)

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[crucini]

"Oppression" == "Systematic coercion that I don't like." It's a subjective word. Every criminal jailed by the state can claim "oppression." The degree of sympathy he gets will depend on how well he plucks the hearstrings of his listeners. Usually the cruelest governments are the ones enforcing the will of the majority. Saudi Arabia is a cruel regime, but if it ever becomes democratic it will be vastly crueler.

Every sane person, regardless of their culture, wants the right to express their own opinions...

I'd say that for a lot of people, the ability to raise your kids in peace and prosperity, free from bad influences, and the ability to feel pride in your country and know that it isn't just a puppet of the US, are more important than having and expressing unusual political opinions. I think your comment screams "young westerner." Let's try a few more riffs on that myopic scheme:

• Every sane person, regardless of their culture, wants to obey the word of God and live as God commanded.
• Every sane person, regardless of their culture, wants to have as many sons as possible and help them get as much wealth and power as possible. And have no daughters.

Lets see you explain that to the family of one of the Chinese students who died in Tiananmen Square in 1989

Let's see you explain to the family of an incarcerated felon why Daddy isn't coming home for a while. Not much of an argument, is it?

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The fact is that I, today, believe that people should be free to rule themselves to the greatest extent possible.

And yet in forcing this belief upon others, you seek to rule them instead of letting them rule themselves, violating the very principle you claim to advocate.

My question wasn't nearly as transparent as you think.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[aardvarkjoe]

To quote your previous post:

Yours is just a pathetic excuse...

You called his point an excuse. People don't inadvertently make excuses. Don't go trying to change what you said after the fact; we can all read it, and you are just digging yourself in deeper by trying to backtrack.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[An Onerous Coward]

No, no. See, it was supposed to be funny because One Louder was pointing out how people always want to try and control others by keeping them from expressing opinions the controller finds distasteful. So here comes this guy who finds that opinion distasteful and wants to have it censored... Ah, never mind. Some people are just too dumb to moderate. :)

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[Sanity]

a) You have still not said what, outside your personal morality and beliefs, makes this so.

If you are trying to start some kind of debate about moral nihilism then I suggest you do-so elsewhere, I find such philosophical navel-gazing tedious in the extreme.

b) So you are saying it is wrong to attack a country if the government has popular support?

No. Read up on the difference between "if" and "if and only if", or alternatively ask a 14 year old with a basic understanding of logic, they can probably help you out.

Re:Stupidest ./ comment I have read all week

[hanssprudel]

If you are trying to start some kind of debate about moral nihilism then I suggest you do-so elsewhere, I find such philosophical navel-gazing tedious in the extreme.

If you are arguing from the perspective of a dogmatic belief in knowledge of an objective morality, then you have to either admit to being a slave to dogma or state your reason. You can't get away from justifying why my comment was stupid by calling having to so "navel-gazing".

No. Read up on the difference between "if" and "if and only if", or alternatively ask a 14 year old with a basic understanding of logic, they can probably help you out.

Umm, not. We are discussing when it is "right" to force our values on the regimes on other countries. You have claimed that there is an objective morality which allows us to do this in some cases, and they can be differentiated from other cases when it is not alright (my original post said that they can't be differentiated, and you called it stupid). Apparently, by your previous post, this objective reality makes it OK when the government of the other country is acting against the will of the "people": I am trying to push you to specify that, particularly what you mean by "people", in an attempt to show that no such standard can be sensibly derived.

This is getting dangerously near a meta-argument, which, I seem to remember, is where all of our arguments end up eventually. (Ah, the good old days! :-) )

I hold that you have not even stated, much less justified, your opinion in the matter.

Re:What Slashdot already told us

[Jane_Dozey]

Wow, that sounds really out of context now the parent was modded down.

from

[themusicgod1]

What I understand, freedom of expression is guaranteed in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights
"Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression ; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of fronteirs."
[emphasis added]. So if there is any nation that is not a part of the United Nations, sure, imposing these restrictions on the freedom of the government of these nations would be imposing their own beliefs on these other cultures. This does not sound like what these people are doing, however. There is no excuse whatsoever for government censorship by any government who is a member of the United Nations(this means you, China, United States of America, and Canada).

Sure, one may argue that the United Nations may be unnecessary, outdated, completely irrelevent or otherwise, but as it stands today, we are obligated to fufil our part of the bargain, despite how sometimes we may disagree with it, or alternatively, decline membership to the United Nations and become a Rogue State, with none of the protections to you that The Declaration provides.

These guys sound down-right nuts, though. If a dictator is willing to kill thousands of his own people, what makes you think they won't assasinate you, if you actively mess with them? Kudos to their efforts.

Re:from

[BCoates]

How is The Memory Hole an example of censorship? It looks to me like the exact opposite.

Re:Reap what you Sow

[BCoates]

Fascinating. I suppose you think you live in a country with free speech due to some sort of virtue on your part? Perhaps you have managed to overthrow a dictatorial government and replace it with a liberal one yourself?

Just seems to be an excuse

[AtariAmarok]

The denial of "human rights" by the parent of your item seems to come across as an excuse to say that oppressive governments that deny rights are quite acceptible: it is "culturally OK".

You will be assimilated

[Toxygen]

Seriously, is it any surprise to anyone here that the government is involved in social engineering programs? They've always used any form necessary/available to bend our thinking into what they want their population to be, and as soon as the next far-reaching information/media service becomes available you can bet they'll be using that too.

Resistance is futile.

Show me a free by western standards Islamic nation

[ShatteredDream]

You won't find one because Islam is a horribly repressive religion. You want to talk women's rights in Islam? Talk about the **absence** of them. Being forced to dress head to toe in a rag because a man might get horny seeing their face is common in many countries. Honor killings of women who have been raped. Polygamy. Whatever freedom an Islamic society extends to men it doesn't to women. Not even basic rights like being able to choose what they want to wear in many countries.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried by saying that culture doesn't determine whether freedom can be present. Cultural attitudes directly affect how one sees oneself in relation to one's fellow citizens.

call me a cynical pri*k

[max privus]

but whenever you mix political activists, social "scientists" and artists, you can virtually ensure that nothing's going to get done. Also, does anyone else find it a tad hypocritical for Canadian academics to be pursuing this effort. Canada is the most repressive developed nation in the world, from the perspective of free speech. Their citizens haven't legal access to foreign media sources, and they're subject to some of the most onerous speech restriction in the western world. -You'll notice that none of citizenlabs efforts are directed towards liberating their own people.

Re:call me a cynical pri*k

[alyre]

Have you ever been to canada. I live here. I've been very active in political activism and will be the first to complain about many of the injustices my government has been attached to. However, I would argue that freespeech is one thing I've had little to complain about. Enter a canadian university's politics department and you are as likely to be taught about marxist analysis of economy as you are laisez-faire economics. And as for us being restricted access to foriegn media that's a load of shit! Most popular tv shows here are american. We get all the major american networks (NBC,FOX,CBS,ABC,UPN, even PBS). I regulary by British music magazines as well as the guardian newspaper. There are USA today vending machines in a few places that I've seen and most major US papers are available as well as one from across the globe. So how exactly am I repressed anymore than the average westerner?

Re:call me a cynical pri*k

[Mskpath3]

Trivially easy. This very moment, Canada is deliberating on C.250

This bills expands the definition of 'hate speech' to include sexual orientation. This little gem would literally make it a crime to criticize the morality of homosexuality. Lest there be any confusion, this is not about inciting violence against gays. No, the simple act of saying 'Homosexuality is wrong' will be a CRIME.

This legislation would very easily be the single most draconian attack on free speech the western world has ever seen. It would give license to those with a bone to pick to do such wonderful things as

- Making the Bible/Koran/Torah 'hate materials'.

- Target any sort of family and/or conservative websites (think : politically oriented ones) as hate sites, subject to shutdown.

- Prevent any sort of legitimate discussion of gay rights legislation because any opposition could be viewed as hate speech.

In any case, it's the real guillotine of free speech. It's up for a vote on April 20th (2 days hence).

Mod this bad boy up, it's scary as hell.

Re:call me a cynical pri*k

[bVork]

Canada is the most repressive developed nation in the world, from the perspective of free speech.

Does the DMCA mean anything to you? Guess what! We don't have an equivalent. (Yet...)

Their citizens haven't legal access to foreign media sources

I doubt you've ever been here. I get CNN, Al-Jazeera, Fox, PBS, and many more. In fact, most television stations here are not Canadian. I challenge you to find ANYTHING that would back up your statement.

...and they're subject to some of the most onerous speech restriction in the western world.

Actually, we do have more speech restrictions than Americans. I'd hardly call them onerous, though. At least, when it comes to hate speech. As I mentioned earlier, we don't have a DMCA to mess with other forms of speech. Here's the section of our Criminal Code that deals with the subject of hate speech.

Bill C-250, which some people on here have been wailing about, makes a single change to the Criminal Code: it adds "or sexual orientation." to subsection 4 of section 318.

Contrary to the beliefs of tinfoil hate (sic) people, this does not muzzle religion, because subsection 3 of section 319 states that "no person shall be convicted of an offence if, ... in good faith, he expressed or attempted to establish by argument an opinion on a religious subject." It also does not prevent public debate over gay rights, because "no person shall be convicted of an offence if ... the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true." The only stipulation in there that might prevent opposing arguments is that a person's statements must be true.

It's not the ads, it's the shows

[AtariAmarok]

Why would we want to watch ads for products that aren't available in our country? It's not the ads, it's the shows. Ask anyone near the border tho uses address tricks to get United States satellite TV programming to see the channels censored off the Canadian satellite feeds.

Banned channels

[AtariAmarok]

what stations are banned, im watching cnn on right now

The most popular US news channel is banned in Canada. I'm pretty sure that SciFi channel is also banned; there are others.

Re:Banned channels

[iantri]

What, FOX News? We get CNN.

We have a Canadian sci-fi channel called Space, which picks up a lot of Sci-fi's programming. I actually think it's a better chanel.. they broadcast ST:TOS, ST:TNG, ST:DS9 and ST:VOY.

They are NOT banned -- they just need to provide the required amount of Canadian programming if they want to broadcast in Canada.

Re:Banned channels

[freeweed]

Weird. Guess I'm not up on the actual ratings numbers, but here's what I as a Canadian have been watching for news for the past decade or more:

CNN & CNN Headline News. The first (and I thought biggest) US news network. Shows zero Canadian content, and has never been "banned" by anyone.

Add in the fact that the vast majority of sitcoms, dramas, documentaries, movies, sports, and commercials are from the US. And when I say vast, I mean VAST. I think the average Canadian might see one episode of a Canadian sitcom a month, if that. I haven't seen one personally for years, because I rarely watch the CBC or CTV.

One of the biggest Canadian broadcasters, Global, broadcasts the Superbowl every year. A 100% US sport, league, etc. Almost every movie I've ever seen on television comes from the US. We get each and every one of your insipid "reality" TV shows. We have nightly NBA/NFL games in-season. The Canadian versions of Discovery/TLC/etc mostly show US-produced content. Even Space (our sci-fi channel) shows only US content. Well, unless Canada had a burgeoning 50's monster movie industry that everyone forgot about.

If there are bans going on, they sure as hell aren't very successful. Even if there are, it's trivial to set up a DirectTV dish, and contrary to what tinfoil hatters would say, the government DOES NOT CARE. There are at least a dozen of these dishes on my street, and no government official or police officer has once said word one about it. In fact, we have a cop on my street, I'm pretty sure if there was some sort of "ban" going on, he'd have busted them by now.

Don't even TRY to compare CanCon rules to what goes on in places like China or the middle east. You don't go to jail here for watching "unapproved" content.

Re:Banned channels

[Dun Malg]

They are NOT banned -- they just need to provide the required amount of Canadian programming if they want to broadcast in Canada.

In other words, they are BANNED based on their content.

Re:Banned channels

[iantri]

This is really getting into a matter of semantics, but nothing broadcast on those channels is illegal in Canada. The problem is that they don't have the required percentage of Canadian programming. If each day was 31.2 hours long, and they only broadcasted for 24 hours, they could stick Canadian content in the other 7.2 hours. (I'm assuming 30% here)

To broadcast here, they need to sacrifice 7.2 hours of the programming that is on the American channel. In a lot of cases, this means that they run a bunch of cheap Canadian programming overnight (TechTV runs Dave Chalk virtually non-stop during the early afternoon and early morning), instead of repeating programming that was run during the day.

There is no particular bias as to what programming they must chop out.

Re:Impose on other cultures? Bullshit

[mabu]

There is a universal morality. It's called, "The Golden Rule" and it has existed in every culture and philosophy. Everything beyond that enters the realm of manipulation with less-than-honorable intent.

I look at the issue of censorship and morality, and their various catalysts such as "cultural identity", "security" and "happiness" as a farce.

This reminds me of a true story. I have a dog. My neighbor has a dog. The difference between our pets is that I let my dog out. I make sure the dog is aware of the danger of the traffic on the street and I've taken care to make sure she understands the dynamics of her world. The neighbors on the other hand, never let their dog out his fenced-in yard. They don't walk him around the area; they "protect" the dog from the street by keeping him sheltered.

About a week ago the dog got out of the yard and was hit by a car and killed.

There is no security when you shelter people from the real world.

Re:Reap what you Sow

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you slow or something?

Not everyone in China wants what they have or had a hand in it. The same with the former Soviet Union (don't like it? Off to the gulag with you sir!).

Of course, you seem not to care about the pains people go through, the horrifc punishments for dissent, and the desire that people have to be free. You are a sad person.

Exactly what censorship...

[ControlFreal]

...are you talking about? http://www.freenetproject.org

Re:Impose on other cultures? Bullshit

[Thanatopsis]

Corporations have never been particularly moral social strucutures. Since they largely exist to de-couple personal responsibility and liabilty. The primary purpose of a corporation is to protect the shareholders and the people running from mistakes, errors in judgement and grevious wrong doing. The idea of secularism has bankrupted the moral component of corporations is silly. Corporations have always existed to protect people from taking responsibility for unethical decisons. I suggest you read the history of the East India Company for a really good example of this.

No gauss needed

[AtariAmarok]

No gauss needed, all you have to have is laws and companies harassing you for daring to receive that evil "foreign" content.

Re:Impose on other cultures? Bullshit

[themusicgod1]

Au contraire, if there were no 'right' or 'wrong' most if not all of the past and current genocides taking place today could never happen - they all have social-political-religious significance.

Take for example, your example of the nazi's and their horrible destruction of the jews(despite breaking godwins law). The nazis who were involved with this did so with a purpose: to rid the world of jews. This is, in their eyes the 'right' thing to do. Bush is so obvious in his doing the right thing that he's going to kill tens if not hundreds of millions of people towards this goal(Doing the Right Thing).

No, this does not mean future genocides under secularism would not happen. And no, I'm not going to offer a solution to your problem (the enrons, genocides) but not thinking critically about the problem solves nothing. Genocides would have happened, provided the means to do so, anyway, without secularism(spanish inquisition much?).

Also, I'm not sure if businesses have ever been as rosy as you paint them. Feel welcome to prove me wrong, but business 100, and 200 years ago was much, much more harsh to its workers than they are these days. And you can thank Unions for that. While we are slowly slipping back, we still have a good deal going for us. Due to minnimum wage laws in my country i only work for a third of minnimum wage. without this minnimum wage I'd probably be making practically nothing. Communism made a good deal of sense in the climate the communist manifesto was written in, due to the mass-scale exploitation of the working class.

By the way, I am prophet themusicgod1, and I judge. What makes me a judge? That I say I am, nothing more, nothing less. I am, I exist, and I judge that I am, I exist, and a great deal of other things, including everything in this post. I could very well be wrong, and both of us know it.

"trying to impose their own beliefs on people"

[wytcld]

Let's say we have this little thing called "science" that enables us to approach real truth - not just culturally-relative beliefs about something we call "true." Let's say with science we begin to have an informed vision about how people can live better than the beliefs of their local culture would allow. For instance, we can teach them how to dig latrines instead of shitting upstream of their water supply. We can also teach them how their local leaders are lying to them about what's true, in the scientific sense, when they persist in foisting culturally-relative beliefs about, say, the supposed inherent inferiority of women (perhaps they are the variety of Muslims who justify this with a claim that women "don't have souls").

If you are a post-modern simpleton, who believes that everything is constituted by belief, that one belief is as well-founded as another (because none are founded at all except in social practice), and that suffering from ignorance should be the accepted plight of children born into particularly ignorant and anti-scientific cultures ... well, please get out of the way while those of us who know the power of science to actually discover and share real, useful, even salvational facts about the world give those children the chance to benefit from these truths, and perhaps - if those facts are about ways to establish human liberty and not just about how to build munitions - even encourage them to make their cultures less dangerous to our own.

Because the only other alternative is to wipe out the ignorant, religious savages as they get better at coming after us to enforce their own anti-scientific, anti-human (as we know it) belief sets. And as much satisfaction as some of us might take in battles fairly won against truly evil (because ignorant) populations, surely the satisfaction is sweeter if we can transform them to something approaching civilization (even as we are only approaching civilization, and have not reached it yet - witness the Bush anti-science agenda).

Re:"trying to impose their own beliefs on people"

[Rostin]

To summarize: Post-modernists are idiots. They are wrong, but I am right. Because I am right, post-modernists should get out of the way and let me do what I want. Because I am right. Science is the best. P.S. Women are "scientifically" inferior to men in many ways. Why do you suppose that we have to have separate sports leagues to allow women to compete? This isn't about science, it's about you foisting your views about egalitarianism between the genders off on some other culture.

Re:"trying to impose their own beliefs on people"

[kraut]

I really would love you to scientifically prove that women "have souls" ;)

Re:"trying to impose their own beliefs on people"

[kcbrown]

To summarize: Post-modernists are idiots. They are wrong, but I am right. Because I am right, post-modernists should get out of the way and let me do what I want. Because I am right. Science is the best.

Nice caricature. Not very useful, though.

The post-modernists I've run across believe that "good" is relative. Some of them even believe that truth is relative as well, and as such no belief system is any more valid than another.

But science is a belief system only to the extent that one believes his own observations. This is sufficient to cover just about everyone.

The scientific method isn't just some arbitrary method of arriving at conclusions about the world. It is one that people the world over use and rely upon almost automatically. It is being used whenever someone asks "what happens if I do X?" and then proceeds to do X in order to see what happens. It is being used whenever someone attempts to solve a real-world problem or to control his environment. It is being used whenever the process of arriving at a solution or of controlling one's environment involves observation of the results and incorporation of those results into the next set of actions.

In short, those very same post-modernists routinely use the scientific method in their everyday lives. That alone gives the scientific method a level of validity above the level those same post-modernists would assign to an arbitrary belief system. Science is just the formalization of the most effective methods people routinely use to understand their environment.

Now, how does this relate to belief systems? More precisely, how does this relate to freedom of expression, human rights, etc.? Simple.

It is simple observation that people value their own happiness. This isn't something that can be debated, because the drive to be happy is instinctive. The amount of effort people expend in the pursuit of happiness exceeds everything else. There are many things that make people happy, of course, from having sufficient food to spending time with friends.

This gives us an objective basis upon which we can define "Good". "Good" is that which maximizes happiness. "Bad" or "Evil" is that which reduces happiness. All that remains is whether the happiness in question is restricted to one (or a few) individuals or if it is spread to a much wider audience.

Because people value happiness, and because observation and history shows us unequivocally that people are happier when they are free than when they are not, it automatically follows that freedom is a good thing. The concept of human rights is a codification of this observation, a statement that freedom is such a necessity for human happiness that everyone should have it.

These aren't arbitrary conclusions to be disposed of as easily as those of any other belief system, these are conclusions that come directly from real-world observation, the same sort of observation almost everyone, of any belief system, including the post-modernists who might disagree, uses to go about their daily lives.

Re:"trying to impose their own beliefs on people"

[Morosoph]

Actually, you're wrong. Facts are observations pure and simple; the scientific method is a means to fitting explanations to those observations. Truth is more than fact in the same way that a theory is more than fact. Naturally a given theory might be wrong, but contrarily to the religious approach of truth through dogma or faith, the scientific method allows theories that are contradicted by experience to be overthrown.

Without science, we are inclined to think that things are the way they are because of their history rather than because of their structure, and history induces terrible bias: You don't get truth in the sense of having an understanding of any predictive value, you get simple self-justification.

Re:"trying to impose their own beliefs on people"

[Rostin]

I am not a capital P capital M Post-Modernist. I agree with your criticism of post-modernism insofar as it accurately describes it.

The scientific method is a pretty successful way of figuring things out about the natural world using what we observe.

There is also no question of whether we could, if we wanted, invent a morality based on the observations we make about how people are made happy. This is really a side issue, but I question whether people are "unequivocally" happier when free. I think this is an oversimplification, and I suspect your belief that this is so stems more from assumption or "common sense" than actual data.

The dispute here is (I think) whether we *should* invent concepts of good and evil using some procedure like the one you've outlined. I think both you and the parent smoothed that over far too quickly, and that is what I was poking fun at. This is less obvious and less easy to argue, and really reflects a set of assumptions about reality that many (possibly most) people (being, among other things, religious in some form or fashion) would reject out of the gate.

speak for yourself

[Doc Ruby]

They're imposing their beliefs in human rights on "other" cultures. More power to them!

most people in the world are against censorship

[t_allardyce]

"Saudi Arabia says explicitly that they censor the internet to preserve their Islamic culture and heritage, which is a pretty valid claim to make,"

Im not an expert but i know that allot of laws that are said to be part of a religion are infact not and leaders have twisted and bent ideals and laws under the guise of religion and that goes for all countries everywhere including the USA. Saudi Arabian law (apparently) also says its ok to beat your wife to within an inch of her life because thats part of islamic law and im pretty sure that its not part of the religion, in other countries its the law to cover your head with a scarf or burka and i know (correct me if im wrong) that the koran does not say that, as for censorship i think thats not in there either, im giving islamic examples because of the quote but i know there are many other examples in other countries where law and what people actually believe in are not the same.

Frankly if someone tries to access a website (and the web is a pull-medium not a push/broadcast-medium) then they have pretty much said "i want to see this", unless its a pop-up or advert that they didnt ask for, but thats the risk you take when your on the net. if an entire country decides that it does not want to see certain things from outside fair-do's, but then really they should have themselves an intranet, not an internet because there is no such thing as 100% effective filtering - you wanna try filtering even 'winzipped' traffic? you wanna try filtering traffic with even the most basic low-tech stenography or encryption? on a country-wide basis? get real.

As for my country (UK) i think i speak for everyone when i say "dont even fucking think about censoring the net! - you can stop pedophiles but thats as far as it goes, period"

Re:most people in the world are against censorship

[Loosewire]

As for my country (UK) i think i speak for everyone when i say "dont even fucking think about censoring the net! - you can stop pedophiles but thats as far as it goes, period"
once its peadophiles it has begun and it will only get worse - not defending them at all but go after people who access the stuff not block access to it (seems like the best policy) censoring even one site is a first step on a slippery slope

Re:most people in the world are against censorship

[t_allardyce]

i agree with that, you solve a problem at the source (ie stop the pedophiles in the first place) not at the end (censoring sites), im pretty sure sites arnt censored in the "you have tried to access an illigal site" way or people would be screaming anti censorship, but in the news you generally hear "computers were seized" which is fair enough as they're evidence, and an isp would have its own policies and would probably would probably have to give the machines up too. In the end its a touchy subject but if a site is off-shore then i dont think my government has any right to censor access to it whatever the content.

to quote anime...

[l33t-gu3lph1t3]

"Human beings are composed of two divergent forces. Homeostasis and Transistatis. Homeostasis is a force to maintain the current situation, and transistasis is the force of change. We're consantly fighting an internal battle with change." (ok, not an exact quote, but I get the idea don't I?)

To quote some other famous philosopher, "the only constant in the universe is change". Cultures, religions trying to resist change are fighting a losing battle. Now, it's granted that certain things are more likely to change than others, but that's up to the people who believe in them. Humans, like every other organism on this earth, are constantly evolving, adapting, changing to match their environment.

With this in mind, it's counter-intuitive to try to be static, resist change. Especially when the only method you have to resist change is to deny it, ignore it, and even prohibit it. Censuring the internet is simple evidence of this: Governments in countries like Cuba, China, Saudi Arabia, etc, wish to "preserve" their existence by denying the existence of other ideas. From the beginning they should have known it was a losing battle.

The trend towards enlightenment through education seems to be unstoppable.Sure you have occasional hiccups (like the dark ages) but in the end, "change is the only constant" and those who oppose change, or the possibility of change that knowledge brings, are fighting a losing battle, and they know it.

come on.

[themusicgod1]

Do you really expect an awnser this question?

Re:Reap what you Sow

[nkh]

The Chinese people PUT their Goverment in Power PERIOD
Are you sure OUR governments have really done nothing to help those dictatures?

WHY Should I care in the least about censorship in China ?
Because it will come to our countries sooner than we may think!

Re:More bullshit.

[themusicgod1]

and your country agreed to it, which means you are bound by it. period.

Why?

[Quixote]

I don't understand why the Saudi (and other Islamic) governments are so worried about this "interweb" harming their culture.

1. Islam is the fastest growing religion on this planet, so why worry about the Internet?
2. Muslims live and thrive in countries with open access to the Internet (like US, Canada, India); if they are just fine with it, what's wrong with Saudi citizens having open access to the Internet?

This censorship by the Saudis wouldn't have anything to do with trying to preserve the royal family's hold on power now, would it? Naaahh.. I didn't think so.. ;-)

hate speech

[themusicgod1]

nt

Re:Canadian TV censorship - Part of the reason

[Craig Nagy]

IIRC, it's more than just a "Canadian content" thing. In Canada there are laws restricting the manner in which corporations can advertise to children. (i.e. no using some super-duper character to sell cereal). Not such a bad idea considering children are so easily influenced.

Being on the largest undefended border makes controlling all those dang signals (tv/radio) a little difficult.

Re:you won't find out anything at commondreams.org

[macdaddy357]

Far-left fascist? That is a contradiction. Fascism is a right wing form of extemism. Time for someone to go back to school.

Reflexive Paradox

[yintercept]

"It is impossible to prove anything" which cannot be proven true, because for it to be true, you must have proved something.

It is pretty much established that the reflexive paradox will come up in any complex system. The paradox has created a great deal angst for top thinkers like Goedel [sp], Cantor, Russell, etc..

Unfortunately, we keep building this paradox into the base of our systems of thought. I personally think the one thing Aristotle and Socrates did right was to acknowledge that their definitions were never really complete, and to procede from there. The systems built with the paradox as a central feature seem a bit mushy to me.

As I recall, Goedel's contribution was to show that the paradox will show up in any system sufficiently complex to include the whole numbers.

Hacktivismo

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.hacktivismo.com/ - a Cult of the Dead Cow project that has been spinning its wheels for a few years. Very similar goals and targets as the academic project featured in the article.

But what is implicitly being said...

[Kjella]

...is the idea that if they would only hear the message, they would embrace it. They should have the right to hear our ideas, just as we have the right to hear theirs.

That does not imply that they have to listen, that they have to embrace the concept of human rights any more than we have to embrace the wonders of "strong leadership".

If a society can only exist under censorship - to keep them uninformed of the alternatives, is that right? I don't think so. That goes for countries and sects alike, seeking to cut off their members' contact with the outside world.

The problem comes when you try to impose it on them - as is the case with Bush now down in Iraq. Perhaps the majority of people in Iraq want an islamic state, that they have heard our Western ideas and rejected them.

From our point of view, they are making a big mistake. But I believe it is also their right to make that mistake. You can only offer them choices, not force them to choose what you want. Not without becoming what you liberated them from.

Kjella

YES!

[themusicgod1]

email here How do i avoid thee, LF? or see for Yourself Lameness filter sucks. skcus retlif ssenemeL

Point of view from the UAE

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Dubai, which is the financial capital of the UAE. As net censorship goes, it isn't as bad here as it is in Saudi Arabia or Iran. The censorship is generally applied to "home" based Internet access, while access is open for office based Internet. Initialy, internet access was unproxied, but some neighboring countries complained about having access to "Questionable" material (anyone who has ever studied Middle Eastern politics understands how poisonous it can be), so BAM came the proxy and all the headaches that goes with it. My problem with censorship however is that it encourages the very behaviour it was intended to stop. Whenever I try to visit a site that just happens to blocked, I get so irritated that I can't help but try to defeat the proxy. Worse, there are plenty of legitimate sites that are blocked because of poor filtering parameters. There are plenty of ways around the proxy though, so its more designed to keep children out and clueless adults (The same clueless adults who are afraid of the BIG BAD net). Censorship has nothing to do with "preserving" religious values, it has everything to do with power and maintaining control by witless clerics and hypocrites. Islam flourished when muslims hungered for knowledge, it only started to decline when clerics decided that muslims already knew enough and didn't need to know more. In the UAE, we have this proxy just to shut the neighbors up, I am looking forward to the day when it finally goes down.

Re:Show me a free by western standards Islamic nat

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawati_Sukarnoputri

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesia :

"Islam is Indonesia's main religion, with almost 87% of the people adhering to it." ... Reasonably could be called an "Islamic nation"

Re:Freenet?

[MikeCapone]

You are right that Freenet is very frustrating to use, but I'd rather that something like it exists and be developped so that when we start to really need it, the kinks have been worked out. That's why I run a node although I don't actually browse freenet; it's a kind of donation to what I believe is a worthy project.

It's the same everywhere, really. The first people who bought hybrid cars didn't get machines that worked as well, were as fast and efficient as those we have today (have you seen the 2004 Prius? or the 2004 Civic Hybrid? And soon there'll be Accords and Camrys) and they had to pay a higher price/deal with more problems, uglier designs, etc.

Same with the people who buy version/revision 1.0 of video cards, motherboards, etc. More bugs, higher priced, etc.

But without the early versions, we wouldn't get the killer apps later on.

I'm sure that better routing/whatever will be developped for freenet, and with bandwidth and storage becoming cheaper all the time, the network will be more efficient than it is now at equal number of nodes. It just takes time to get there... Of course there could be some theorical bottlenecks to the project that can't be easily solved without changing some of the fondamentals, but maybe that's possible too without compromising the goals too much.

My 2 cents (canadian).

Re:Reap what you Sow

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

WHY Should I care in the least about censorship in China ?

Because you would like it if someone cared enough for you to call an ambulance rather than to steal your watch and wallet if you ever got into a serious accident. "Reap what you sow", couldn't think up a more appropriate title myself.

Re:Freenet?

[shostiru]

Unfortunately, people who try Freenet, decide it sucks, and then leave after a day or two are partly to blame for the problem.

If you read the documentation and the mailing list you'll find there are a few simple steps you can take that will dramatically improve the performance of your node:

1. Use the unstable network and release, not the stable network. Performance is at least an order of magnitude better. Make sure to get the unstable seednodes.ref too.
2. Keep your node online for at a week before assessing performance. It takes time for your routing table to fill. Trying links during this time does seem to speed this up, but don't be surprised if you have serious problems in the first week.
3. Increase your cache size to several GB. The recommendations on the website are way too low.
4. Change your browser settings as per the instructions (i.e., increase number of concurrent requests and timeout), otherwise you'll be waiting forever just because a key or two comes up missing. Oh, and don't use IE, it breaks any security Freenet offers.
5. If at all possible, run it on a spare box and accept the CPU load (and configure it to permit web access from your local network and nowhere else). It's a CPU hog, and will probably continue to be a CPU hog for awhile. The unstable release seems to be a lot better.
6. Keep it running as much as possible; whenever you go offline you adversely impact the net.
7. Follow the mailing list, you'll get recommendations for what settings to adjust and why.
8. Realize that whenever a lot of people try Freenet and then quit (e.g., when it's mentioned in slashdot), the performance of the network will go to hell for awhile.

Yes, you'll get some key lookup failures, but it's a lot better with the above. More problematic, I think, is the type of content that's available on Freenet. Anonymous and unblockable publishing and retrieval means anything and everything can appear, no matter how illegal or reprehensible. That's the price you pay for totally free speech. I'm still not entirely comfortable with that, and a lot of people think that price is way too high.

Re:Reap what you Sow

[mar1boro]

"...give me 1 REASON , WHY Should I care in the least about censorship in China ?

There are 1.3 billion people on mainland China. By 2050 there will be 1.7 billion. source
China is poised to become the most economically powerful nation in the history
of the world. You had best care very deeply about goings on in China.

I can only assume this display, "The Chinese people PUT their Goverment in Power PERIOD..."
is an innocent expression of ignorance, and not a troll. If every single
person alive in China during the revolution were still living, they would only
comprise about %25 percent of the population. Seeing as the revoltion ended
in 1949, this is not very likely. But let's, for the sake
of argument, say they are all living. That leaves one billion living human
beings who were born and raised under the rule of a totalitarian regime.

Were you alive when The Peoples' Army crushed the protesters in Tiananmen Square?
Try this one, this one, this one, or this one .

You asked "...WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I CARE ?" You should care because if you are
ever in a position where you feel it is your duty to oppose a dictator,
you better pray you get more help than they did.

Utter poppycock

[shostiru]

You are either assuming that "there is no member of set S such that T" is itself a member of set S, or that all truths are morals (if all morals were truths but not all truths were morals, then it would be possible to have objective truths but no objective morals). You have failed to establish either of these. A statement about moral right or wrong is not inherently a moral, any more than a statement about dogs is inherently a dog. And "the set of real numbers R is closed under addition" is true but not a moral statement.

"To preserve", vs. "to perpetuate"

[The Famous Brett Wat]

What the Saudis are doing is not so much attempting to preserve their Islamic culture and heritage as perpetuate it by restricting access to alternatives. As another poster pointed out, cultural preservation is the domain of museums and heritage societies. Legislative attempts to perpetuate culture and heritage fall afoul of the first amendment in the USA with some frequency -- are these legislative attempts at cultural status-quo-maintenance "valid" in Saudi Arabia because they don't have such a first amendment type of thing in their present culture?

Impose beliefs?

[holizz]

Are they defending human rights, or simply trying to impose their own beliefs on people from other cultures?

People who don't want to circumvent censorship aren't being forced to as the writer seems to be alluding to.

"Here, have this censorship circumvention doodah."
"Noooo!"
"Well, you're getting it anyway!"
"Noooo, I want to use the censored version of Google and be unaware as to the state of my government!"

Re:American technology is helping repress the Chin

[espo812]

said we were helping the same Communist government that gave us Tianamen Square and would continue to repress the Chinese people using this technology

Some people argue we shouldn't trade with china, because it assists them in government repression. Others say we should trade with them, because they will then see how good western capitalist culture is and have to change. See also: Cuba, N. Korea.

Re:so guess they would be fighting for janet jacks

[MikeCapone]

The standards of public conduct are different the world over. A government has the responsibility to enforce what its citizens feel is appropriate. Now, the government should not *define* what is appropriate, the citizens should. Thus if the majority of people in saudi arabia feel a web site contravenes prevailing standards, then yes, the government would be right in 'banning' it. Hopefully the people are well enough informed to make a proper decision here.

I strongly disagree.

Governments maybe be elected by the majority (where there is actual elections, unlike in Saudi Arabia), but they are there to represent and protect everybody, not just said majority.

That's where the concept of human rights exists, though. I guess that in some places they could actually consider freedom of speech a hurtful thing and in good faith - from their point of view - restrict it "for the good of everybody".

Re:This is all political BS

[Concerned Onlooker]

We censor kiddie porn, snuff films

Please. Kiddie porn and snuff films are not censored. They are images of illegal activities and prosecuting their distribution is censorship in the same way that making murder illegal is oppressing your right to free speech.

Democracy != Freedom

[The Monster]

Democracy is useful, but it's not a magic wand that makes authoritarianism disappear.

Of course not. It's quite possible to have democratically elected authoritarian governments. Prohibition was enacted by elected representatives. And, of course, Hitler was elected.

Re:Democracy != Freedom

[bishopdantehotmail.c]

Elections are not democracy, and they are certainly not freedom. Freedom is actually a pretty dumb concept. It's a bit like when advertisers claim that something is 'free'. Things appearing out of nowhere 'free' is not scientific. It violates the law of conservation of energy. Freedom is an imaginary ideal. you can get closer or further away, but you cannot achieve it as a singular goal. It is a quality that facilitates other goals. People seem to be under the assumption that Democracy is the same as Freedom. I think they might have been sold something imaginary by George Washington. Democracy was what the Ancient Greeks invented and we could probably come up with a better system that makes full use of the technology available. Instead of ticking in the box for either bush or gore, you could write an email about what you would like to see happen in government. The emails could then be statistically analysed by a large computer and people would have far more power than they currently do. But I don't think that Iraq would be crawling with American soldiers if we voted every week via email. Then again, I'm not sure that ruling by the Lowest common denominator is such a good idea.

Censorship is nothing but mind control

[leereyno]

Control what people know about and you control what they believe. This is the fundamental purpose of censorship, to control what people think. Information control is people control. When you can control what people know and believe controlling what they DO is trivial. This is why there were not constant wide-spread violent revolts in places like the USSR where most of the population believed the leftist lies they were spoon-fed every day. The few who didn't were easy to detect and for them the gulag awaited.

Here in the west, particularly in America, there is a concept known as freedom of speech. We hold the right to speak one's mind as a fundamental freedom that exists independently of whether the government protects or even acknowledges it. What most people don't realize is the fact that it implies and is dependent upon an even more basic right, and that is the freedom to make up one's mind. The freedom to think for oneself. The freedom to choose what one believes is the foundation upon which all liberty rests. After all, what use is the ability to express your thoughts and ideas when those are being determined by someone else?

Censorship is an attack upon freedom itself. The idea that by fighting it you are somehow imposing your views upon someone else is one of the most despicable lies I've ever heard, and one of the most perfect examples of the pot calling the kettle black.

It is censorship itself that seeks to impose beliefs upon people. Those who fight it work to ensure the freedom of others to make up their own minds and decide for themselves what they are going to believe.

Any culture that depends upon protection from outside influences and ideas in order to survive is a culture that is doomed to perish, and should. The reason is because the degree to which a culture must be so protected is the degree to which it is based upon lies.

A culture is a set of defining values, beliefs, and ideals held in common by a group of people. A culture is therefore valuable and beneficial to the degree to which it reflects objective truth and contributes to the well-being of those who are a part of it. Those who believe that cultures are somehow inherently precious or valuable are missing the point. The very purpose of human culture is to ensure the survival of the individuals who belong to it. Culture exists to bring individuals together and unify them as a people for the added benefit of all who are a part of it. If a culture does not do this, or does not do this as well as another culture that is competing with, then it should and will either adapt or perish. There is nothing tragic about this. The exposure to and subsequent adoption of new ideas that are more closely aligned with reality, and therefore improve the lives of everyone so exposed, is nothing to cry about.

I fully support this group's efforts to fight censorship. I don't think they go far enough however. Graeme Bunton seems to think that Saudi Arabia censoring the internet in order to preserve its islamic culture is a valid endeavor. I don't. Ideas should stand or fall based upon their own merit. Cultures, being made up of ideas and beliefs, should be held accountable to the same standard. As I said before, if a culture has to be protected from outside influences in order to survive, then it is a culture that is to that degree based upon lies. As someone who seeks to know and live with the truth, I see no reason to protect lies no matter who it is that believes them or why.

Lee

Re:you won't find out anything at commondreams.org

[BCoates]

Whatever you say, Trotsky.

Re:This is all political BS

[BCoates]

Since when are images of illegal activities illegal? Seems like that would put a crimp in the news business...

The way I sees it

[gordlea]

From the Posting: Are they defending human rights, or simply trying to impose their own beliefs on people from other cultures?

If the the people from other cultures really belive that they shouldn't be looking at something, it wouldn't need to be censored.

Re:American technology is helping repress the Chin

[greenrd]

Wow! A post from a libertarian that actually lays down both sides of an argument without any bias or ridiculing the opposing side.

Kudos! I don't see that very often from libertarians.

moral relativism is a mistake

[geekee]

"Are they defending human rights, or simply trying to impose their own beliefs on people from other cultures?"

I think it is a mistake to assume that you cannot defend basic human rights simply because the leaders of other cultures refuse to grant these rights to their citizens. The concept that morality is relative, and that there is no objective standard for morality, is flawed. It assumes the majority of people in a particular area, based on history, have the right to impose their collective will on the individual. Instead, the world need to recognise the objective morality of preserving basic human rights, even if the majority in that region (although usually it's a ruling minority) object. Freedom of speech is a basic human right, and no govt. has the right to to take it away, especially if it is critical of the govt. in question.

Re:moral relativism is a mistake

[Little Brother]

Ah, such a faith in absolutes. Freedom of speech is a basic human right only because one group says it is. If I find a consortium that says free health care is a basic human right (which I think it should be so considered) does that make it so?

What if allowing freedom of speach in some areas is dangerous to the majority, say somebody publishing plans to make nerve toxins or neculear weapons (assuming for the sake of the argument that components of such items were attainable to at least part of the population). What about hate speech, should speach that insites people to beat up or {jews || homosexuals || christians || arabs || blacks || women with jobs || lawyers || political leaders} be allowed to flourish? How about the classic example of child pornography, should it be protected as free speech? What about yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?

Should propaganda denouncing the value of free speach be allowed? What about publication of the privite lives of ordinary citizens?

If free speach is anathema to a people, should it be forced upon them? Even if 100% object and feel threatened by it? Can you call it moral to force views on people that they do not want?

No, free speech isn't a universal human right, that is a right that exists independent upon the culture that values it. We may, as I do, culturaly consider it a good thing, but to fail to see the possibility of a valid differing moral ground is arrogance and simple mindedness.

Re:Show me a free by western standards Islamic nat

[DeadScreenSky]

(I am far from an expert on Islam, so I am not going to go too far into details I don't feel comfortable stating.)

Ignoring the fact that you are badly exaggerating (or at least mixing together different countries' customs into one big definition), most of this has nothing to do with Islam really. The current dominant strain of Islam can seem oppressive by Western standards (largely because it is a response to Western cultural imperialism, IMO, so of course it is opposed), but there are pretty liberal Islamic nations now and in the past. Look at much of the Middle East during the European Medieval Age, for example.

And some elements of Islam are still massively less repressive than what you might find in Christianity. For example, the fact you aren't supposed to convert your children just because it is your religion - you wait until they are old and educated enough to make their own choice.

Re:Impose on other cultures? Bullshit

[mpe]

The primary purpose of a corporation is to protect the shareholders and the people running from mistakes, errors in judgement and grevious wrong doing.

IIRC The original idea was to protect the investors (the shareholders) from financial liability if the undertaking went bankrupt. As well as to enable there to be many investors. But the concept of "limited liability" got added to.

I Was Surprised At Some Of Their Comments

[Master of Transhuman]

They're worried about imposing their beliefs on another culture?

The point of their exercise is that members of a given culture (their governments) have imposed their beliefs on the people of that culture. It is up to the PEOPLE to decide what the "culture" is - NOT the government.

In any event, there is NO culture worth "preserving" if it cannot "preserve" itself, by definition. (And the Iraqis are proving and preserving daily by shooting US troops.)

These people need to get straight on this or their efforts will be half-hearted and useless.

Re:Impose on other cultures? Bullshit

[nathanh]

The difference between our pets is that I let my dog out. I make sure the dog is aware of the danger of the traffic on the street and I've taken care to make sure she understands the dynamics of her world.

Gah, I despise people that let their dogs roam free. Roaming dogs defecate on pavements and in other people's gardens. They terrorise small children (even if the dog is friendly, children can be scared witless by a roaming dog). They pose a hazard to passing cars (the driver doesn't know if your dog is going to run in front of the car or not). They chase and kill natural wildlife such as lizards and small marsupials. They find other dogs and engage in 3-hour long barking sessions that piss everybody off.

Lock your freaking dog up when you're not around. Do not let it roam.

Re:so guess they would be fighting for janet jacks

[nathanh]

Thus if the majority of people in saudi arabia feel a web site contravenes prevailing standards, then yes, the government would be right in 'banning' it.

No, because that would be an example of the majority imposing their will on the minority. In other words, mob rule. The government should take steps to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. -- John Mills

True

[dogfart]

Aboriginal culture was supressed by force and fraud. It did not collapse because of the force of logic and reason behind western culture, but because aboriginal people were massacred, enslaved, and forced off their land.

Opening up cultures to different views via the Internet is not the same as slaughtering the people making up that culture. Had the Europeans treated the aboriginal people as humans deserved to be treated, their culture would have survived in a much more vital form.

It is proper for the government of Saudi Arabia to protect the country against foreign military invasions. It is not proper to block "un-Islamic" ideas.

Not necessarily "either/or"

[Venotar]

> Are they defending human rights, or simply trying
> to impose their own beliefs on people from other
> cultures?

Both. BTW - to Impose or to Persuade and convince? See Fallacy of Prejudicial Language

Re:American technology is helping repress the Chin

[koreth]

I don't see that very often from people of any political stripe.

Re:Reap what you Sow

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The point I was trying to make Is WHY THE FUCK SHOULD I CARE ?

Because first they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, and did nothing.

And then they came for the black men, but I was not a black man, and did nothing.

And then they came for the women, but I was not a woman, and did nothing.

...

And then they came for me, and there was no-one left to defend me.

Re:American technology is helping repress the Chin

[espo812]

both sides of an argument without any bias or ridiculing the opposing side

Well thanks. I didn't push any bias because I'm not sure what the solution is. Also, it helps to know the popular arguments on the subjects one is interested in. On one hand, I see communism as a terrible thing and I prefer to boycot it on principle. However, looking at N. Korea and Cuba - we haven't exactly ended their regimes. And now N. Korea has nuclear weapons (maybe) but probably not much of a delivery system to threaten us.

If we had been trading with them, would they have been able to buy more sophisticated systems? China has advanced weapons - I'm not sure if their delivery systems can reach the entire continental US, but I'm sure it can reach the west coast. They are also adapting their government to move towards capitalism. Lots of conflicting sides, and I just don't have an answer. However, as a Libertarian I can say this: it's not the government's job to regulate who we trade with (see: most favored nation status - which is now known as something else.)

Re:This is all political BS

[drsmithy]

Please. Kiddie porn and snuff films are not censored. They are images of illegal activities and prosecuting their distribution is censorship in the same way that making murder illegal is oppressing your right to free speech.

With that line of reasoning, murder and mayhem in regular movies should also be verboten because they depict illegal activities.

Not that I think KP and snuff flicks are acceptable in general, it's just that "because it's illegal" is an incredibly poor justification for disallowing _any_ action, no matter how distasteful. KP and snuff aren't censored, they're illegal to create - hence any examples thereof are also inherently illegal to possess (having said that, just watching it shouldn't be illegal).

rights are a cultural imposition?

[samantha]

Those who believe that rights are arbitrary are usually those who believe that human beings have no particular nature but are in all important ways products of their culture. Generally these folks also believe that rights are an arbitary gift of a culture/society. There is no understanding of rights growing out the nature of human beings and what that nature requires to function well and happily. So to these folks the right to speak and communicate ones ideas and opinions is a mere cultural artifact, and inexplicable gift of society, that one cannot demand if one was so unfortunate as to be born in a society without such. At leeast one cannot demand it as a "right".

Similarly, no one can fight against the absence of rights they consider the norm because rights have no basis and no universality among human beings. So these folks consider seeking to guarantee the rights of others in other culture as "cultural imperialism". To be consistent, if rights are the gifts of society, then the society may take away what it gives.

I can only hope that if we lose some of our rights in the US that some "cultural imperialists" rise to our aid! Rights are derived from the nature of human beings. They are not free arbitrary gifts of the state to be granted or withheld by its whim. Persons who do not have certain inalienable rights are living under some greater or lesser degree of tyranny against their own nature as human beings. Any who wish to help them gain and keep their rights should be applauded rather than being sneered at as "imposing their culture".

Also MUTE-Net

[Famatra]

MUTE-Net is a searchable anonymous p2p application that just came out in December 2003, and is working well (for anonymous p2p).

They did not put in file resume yet because they wanted to fix all the problems other then a node disconnecting first. After file resume is in it should be a great program, esp. since it has file hash like emule/edonkey.

Wikipedia Article on MUTE

Just a thought.

[gd2shoe]

It doesn't sound to me that the Canadian government has anything to do with this project. Why are you blameing these students. They may, or may not, also be trying to fix whatever problems Canada may have. I doubt you know about that. I don't.

Re:This is all political BS

[Concerned Onlooker]

With that line of reasoning, murder and mayhem in regular movies should also be verboten because they depict illegal activities.

Yes, you're right. My wording was poor. What Ozone Depletion wrote is a good correction of what I wrote.

"because it's illegal" is an incredibly poor justification for disallowing _any_ action, no matter how distasteful

On the contrary. It is an excellent justification if you stop to think that the reasoning came before the law, not the other way around. First the reason for the law, then the law. It's also a good social control for those who completely lack the ability to internalize values and who will only behave non-sociopathically if they think there will be a punishment for breaking the law. This would explain the terrible behavior of many CEOs today as they realize there will be no real punishment. :-)

But perhaps I'm missing your point.

Re:American technology is helping repress the Chin

[bishopdantehotmail.c]

I would perhaps replace the word communist with the phrase opressive regime or military dictatorship.

Re:Show me a free by western standards Islamic nat

[bishopdantehotmail.c]

Very extreme religion (such as the Catholics in the spanish inquisition) is usually violently opressive. Islam is just the same. Not all islamic women are forced to wear the sack and yashmak. I live in London and the edgware road is like the middle east. The cafe menus are in arabic etc. And the women dress pretty racy to be honest. Racier than most english women certainly. Islam is not the Taliban, just like the spanish inquisition is not Catholicism or Christianity. The Spanish inquisition sort of edited out the important christian quality of forgiveness.

Re:This is all political BS

[drsmithy]

On the contrary. It is an excellent justification if you stop to think that the reasoning came before the law, not the other way around. First the reason for the law, then the law.

Were that reasoning drive primarily by objective, rational thought, that might be true. However, the reasoning (and hence the law) is drive by religious, governmental and corporate biases long before any rational or objective argument can even be seen in the distance. There's a myriad examples of stupid laws - both past and present - clearly demonstrating this, so I shouldn't even need to list any.

It's because of this, that the "because it's illegal" argument is the weakest, poorest justification for disallowing certain activities. The law is not self-justifying, and considering it so is nothing more than an invitation for oppression. Similarly, the law is not always (I'd go so far as to say rarely) written by, or in the best interests of, society at large.

If the restriction of an activity can only be strongly supported by an argument of "because it's illegal", that's generally a pretty good indicator that activity shouldn't be illegal at all.

It's also a good social control for those who completely lack the ability to internalize values and who will only behave non-sociopathically if they think there will be a punishment for breaking the law.

No, it's not, because for such people punishment (of any sort) is very rarely a deterrent.

This would explain the terrible behavior of many CEOs today as they realize there will be no real punishment. :-)

These CEOs are driven by - and living - the American dream. If you want someone to "blame" for their actions, blame American society and its massive conservative, free-market capitalism, win-at-all-costs, I'm-ok-bugger-the-rest-of-you bias. If you want to "fix the problem", you'll have to change American culture.

The internet is its own culture

[Sn_wC_t]

enough said

"Banned" is the correct word

[AtariAmarok]

Banned, is indeed, the correct word. Your message than goes on to explain why certain stations are banned.

It IS censorship

[AtariAmarok]

There are also no moral or religious restrictions on the content--Canadian or otherwise

It is censorship based on supposed national origin of content. That is still censorship.

And you know what? The system works

No, as it is censorship and is totally unwarranted, the system stinks.

The notion that 'foreign stations are banned' is patently ridiculous

It's a fact. My Canadian friends have to deal with it and get "illegal" satellite feeds in order to get around the ban.

There are more and better-known Canadian recording artists and actors than ever before

Of course of you censor group B, group A flourishes.

And "Cheers!" to John Ashcroft. How's your quaint little shut-down-the-adult-film-industry crusade going?

The US has a censorship problem, of course. This does not deny the fact that Canada also has a major censorship problem.

Censoring foreign culture

[AtariAmarok]

Seems to work well for music, there's lots of good canadian music. Hasn't been so successful with tv.

If there is "lots of good canadian music" only as a result of censoring foreign content, you really have to wonder how good it really is. You know, if you ban Linux/*IX/*UX and Mac OS, then no-one can deny that Windows is the best OS out there!

this isn't censorship, no message is being rejected or filtered.

Censorship based on supposed national/ethnic/etc content is a time-honored part of the censorship picture. No message is being rejected or filtered....unless it is foreign, of course. Then it is OK to censor it?

Re:Impose on other cultures? Bullshit

[mabu]

Gah, I despise people that let their dogs roam free.

I never said I let my dog "roam free". I don't. I never let the dog loose around the neighborhood. That's not any better than locking it up.

Did you hear that sound? It was the point of my diatribe going over your head.