Slashdot Mirror
Contrabandwidth
tcd004 writes "Kate Palmer writes in Foreign Policy Magazine that an international black market for Internet access has arisen in many authoritarian countries who keep their populations offline. Savvy black marketers in cybercafes, universities, private homes, and elsewhere are exploiting technological loopholes to circumvent government filters and charge fees for access. According to OpenNet Initiative, a nonprofit that tracks banned sites, visiting a single website in Saudi Arabia can cost anywhere from $26 to $67. And as censorship spreads, the prices are only going up." It's just a few paragraphs, but thought provoking.
In a sad way it really demonstrates how things we take for given are not all that given.
How else could someone have a black market for Internet Site access? In our day and age, information should florish, not be stifled by fearful governments.
...we have a black market in any molecules that might cause enjoyment.
Whenever there is a need, a supply will arise, regardless of any other factors. When gas/food/etc was rationed in WWII, black markets rose to fulfill the demand. That can also be applied to the sex industry in SE Asia, but I digress...
Question is, though, is visiting 'banned' websites worth the cash, or is it just for 'thrill' value? I don't think I'd pay $26 just to get to Maddox's site, despite it's inherent awesomeness.
How backward ? Yes, indeed try to travel to Cuba then...
MP3 Search Engine
In short, we can all look forward to a future where freedom isn't a right.
It's a service that's offered, for a price.
May the Maths Be with you!
It's funny how we're supposedly bringing freedom to the middle east, when one of our biggest "allies" is a nation so opressive that they lock girls in a burning school to prevent them from being seen without a burqa. The saudi government is much worse in many ways than Saddam Hussein's, yet we are not starting any wars for a "regime change" there? Saudi Arabia is openly hostile to our allies, treats their citizens worse than Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro, and publically criticizes both democracy and the US government and people. Not only do we not detest them, but the Bush family is friends with the oppressive house of Saud.
I fail to see how anyone can believe that this administration's goals are anything but getting Bush's friends richer.
Good post... but mentioning CNN and FOX as "factual" information was a bit of a stretch =D.
Which is more important? Censoring child pornography or enabling general freedom of speech?
.sig gives my opionion away.
In any case, my
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
I really don't see any obvious way in which the childporn on Freenet can result in more child abuse.
Well the first argument would be that exposing people to the child porn might encourage them to become paedophiles. I think that's false in the same way that gay pornograpgy doesn't make straight people gay, but it's an argument.
The main issue with the child pornography is that it so abhorrent that most people natural instinct is to do everything they can to stamp it out. You've taken an extremely rational approach to it that ignores this disgust, though you make a good case.
However, consider that these children are harmed not just in the making of the porn but in its distribution. I really don't know what we're talkig about with this stuff, if it's pictures of children being abused or if it's just nude children, but if it's the latter then the kid might be far more traumatised just by growing up knowing that people were using her picture. And imagine being the parent of that kid and knowing that guys around the world were using that photo.
As I say, you may have a valid point as far as Freenet is concerned that I'd have to consider further, but there definitely are arguments against it.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Freedom of speech is simply saying what you think and or feel, your opinion on any idea or concept. Child pornography is the "act" of using children for your perverted enjoyment. That is not speech, that is action that involves an unwilling participant and that actions is a threat to freedom loving people and should be delt with by those who you threaten.
It is important to keep the distinction between an idea, thought or speech from that of an act or action against others. The freedom to discuss anything, have opinions about anything is an inalienable right that all people have. It is not granted by the government nor can it be rightfully taken away by the government. We are all born with that right.
There is NEVER a legitimate reason to censor free speech, never.