Slashdot Mirror
FCC Pitches Free, Bowdlerized Wireless Internet Access
Aidtopia writes "FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is proposing auctioning off an unused part of the 25 MHz spectrum on the condition that the winner provide free wireless Internet access. The proposal sets coverage targets that ramp up to 95% of the population within 10 years. The catch: the provider must filter out obscene content." I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use.
Add anything that is not "politically correct", and it'll be filtered.
Thus, about 99% of all media.
Fuck that.
s/obscene/dissenting/g
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
Well there goes half the internet
What good is the Internet with out the "obscene" stuff
I wonder if this is a less than subtle way of the FCC executing a power grab, first establish censoring on a free network, then start moving it to the current networks (although this would not be needed if the enough people use this as their "last mile", you just look at their traffic there).
Claude Shannon eyeing the, at most, 50 kHz suspiciously.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Tipper Gore and Jack Thompson
to place restrictions on private industry
Give me a tube, and I'll show you how to shove pornography and MP3s down it. Bring it on!
I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use.
In the US, 'obscene' has a clear legal meaning: material that meets the three-pronged (I said 'prong,' huhuuhuh) test established in Miller v. California:
1. 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards' would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
2. the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
3. the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Such material isn't protected speech. I think it should be, but there you go: it's hardly surprising that the FCC doesn't want it on a freely-accessible broadcast network. It's an infinitely more reasonable position for them to take than if they were demanding that providers filter "indecent" material, which is a) protected speech and b) has no strict legal definition.
Both parties place very heavy restrictions on the private industry.
That's what the government does. They meddle.
I know I'm middle class /
But I'm quick to curse the cash /
That makes us trespass /
Put on the gas mask
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
At first, reading the title, there was amazement! An FCC chairman, pitching FREE internet?!?!
Then there came reality: no 'obscene' content.
What the fuck is this, 1953? Hey, while we're at it, why don't we go beat up some Commies and re-segregate the South, then fine anyone who says dirty words on these gosh darn 'radios'??
Thats like giving someone a car with no wheels, engine, gas tank, doors, windows, seats or seat belts, and wondering why nobody wants your gift.
Essentially this amounts to severe packet filtering or an Orwellian 'approved' list of websites. Whats worse, is who's doing the filtering, and how deep? I'm sure there are Wikipedia articles that would classify as 'obscene'.
Fuck this. I can't wait for the day when I can go buy an open source mesh broadcast tower, put it in my house, and get a truly FREE internet.
The FCC, just like the patent office, hasn't been able to cope since the 90's. When are we going to fix this broken shit, and WHY are all of our government offices run by morons? (As far as I know - I apologize to any /. readers who run a government office and are intelligent and make good decisions).
FCC Okays Nudity On TV If It's Alyson Hannigan
So far everyone has been focusing on the bad - but let me break it down -
The Good: Free Internet access over an add supported public channel - at what should be fairly good speed - that alone is a significant move in the right direction toward improving access for rural areas, and reducing the broadband divide
The Ugly: One Company - gets to try to make this work. I find this troubling only for one reason - it is clear now that ISP's have no problem filtering the internet not just for obscene content, but for any content they don't particularly care for (Comcast and BT?) - regardless of whether it is on one protocol or another. And whats more, they will not be challenged when they engage in such practices.
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
I suppose this is nothing new. They are the ones who have imposed fines on tv broadcasters for obscenity in the past, aren't they? It would be nice if they actually focused on communications instead of just the opposite.
I would love to spend money at auction so that I could spend money to provide free Internet access on which I had to spend money to filter obscene content and face paying more money if those filters don't work. Sign me up!!
Considering 802.11 uses 20Mhz channels, a 25Mhz allocation doesn't sound all that interesting.
Auction off? Doesn't me mean solicit contracts? No corporation is going to be able to "freely" provide internet access AND filter all the content on the web. They'd have to pay someone to do that, and the leftover bandwidth in the spectrum just ain't gonna cut it.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
Waging imperialist war? Eh. Suspending basic human rights for people due to their political, religious, or ethnic affiliation? Meh. Selling weapons to sworn enemies during wartime? Let's hold a congressional thing and exculpate the president and anyone else involved, just because.
TITTIES??!! We've got to do something! Call the press! Notify the local authorities! LOOK OUT! IT'S A VAGINA! NOOOOOoooooooooo.....
Bowdlerize seems pretty likely, but isn't it at least possible that the FCC is turning that part of the spectrum into a boulder?
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
On the FCC front page, there is a link to all the members of the board, and their emails.
I say we email them.
Lets turn the ./ effect upon our government, and see if maybe, just maybe, we can convince them not to make the same dumb ass mistakes they make every 30 years trying to censor new formats.
I bet I can make a raunchy ASCII Art out of your 10 words. :)
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
This isn't the 25MHz spectrum, it's a 25MHz block of the 2.1GHz spectrum. Realizing that makes this story make a whole lot more sense. There's no possible way this would work in the HF range.
I guess they will be blocking all search providers then. A simple Google image search of will deliver the goods. I suppose they could block the links provided in such a search, but you still have a nice contact sheet to look at for your jollies.
FCC FU: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzaqXFcsH2U
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
I can see the FCC wanting to censor material because some people are way too sensitive about their repressed desires but that only makes sense in a broadcast model where everyone receives the same material. Internet by its very nature is fractured and each individual makes their own choices in what content they would like to receive. I don't care if my neighbor is pulling down midget latex whipping gross porn next door - thats an adult in their private home and I shouldn't have a say in what happens behind their closed door.
Shh.
it now includes republicans, southern baptists & freemasons, as well as well as the already known to be greasing the axis of evile greed/fear/ego based corepirate nazi glowbull warmongerers. take heed.
People that don't know better will be like: "Hey filtered is better than nothing. Can't bitch about free."
The christians will say: "Not only is this a great product, but free as well. Plus they will filter out all the smut... HOW WONDERFUL!"
1% will say: "Fuck that. Don't tell me how to surf."
And the rest don't give a shit. I give this a better than average chance of going through.
I finally updated my sig, but now it's lame.
I think that there are two pretty major flaws with this idea:
:).
1) Bandwidth. 802.11b uses 22Mhz of bandwidth for each of its channels. There is not 22Mhz of unallocated bandwidth at 25Mhz. I'm sure that compression techniques are better now than when 802.11 stuff was defined. However, looking at the FCC allocation chart, there isn't much unassigned bandwidth near 25Mhz. A few Mhz here and there, unless they're considering usurping ham radio and maritime bands and otherwise kicking people off of frequencies. I'm not sure what they're considering "unused". Someone with more knowledge of on data compression via radio techniques might chime in
2) Propagation. 25Mhz is right around 12 Meters, which the hams and DX CB radio folks will know can propagate hundreds and even thousands of miles, depending upon ionospheric conditions. Take the bandwidth problem above, and multiply it by the fact that the precious little slice of bandwidth you get might be stomped on by everyone in the US during peak sunspot activity. This is likely the reason that mobile carriers aren't interested in these frequencies.
I'm pretty sure this is a loser idea. If someone knows more than me, I'd love to learn more about this stuff, though.
Reid
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
Your whole post is one big overreaction. The government mandates the project, therefore it can't allow obscene material into it. If you don't like it, vote for people who want obscene material to be freely viewed by minors, but don't hold your breath for the day when a majority of Americans feel the same way.
Bowlderized? Is that rock-solid censorship?
J'aime mieux les méchants que les imbéciles, parce qu'ils se reposent. -- Alexandre Dumas
I'll take "Another IT Clueless guy who wants to influence the IT cauldron" please Stan!
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
If anything this guy's post is funny (not a troll)
Why is everybody confused? The FCC already has legally definitions for "obscene" and clearly, since they're the ones auctioning off the frequency block, they'd be the ones deciding the definition of obscene. If you're still confused, here's how it works: Watch TV. Whatever they can do there, they can do on an obscenity-filtered wireless service. http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html
That's bowdlerize.
Everyone in the world should Block 38.107 and 129.47 at their firewalls. I did years ago when these bastards started feeding me bad hashcodes for the bob dylan torrent I was downloading.
Look it up. Come on, people.
Did they say "25Mhz". If so then this is not a high speed system. We are talking kilo-bits per second at best not megabits. So this would not be a broadband service It would be like a slow dial up speed. Good for email and text based pages but not audio/video content.
1. Average person in which community? Who determines what an average person would think?
2. define "patently offensive" -- to who? This hypothetical "average person"?
3. who determines (and how) "merit" -- especially something as objective as literary or artistic merit?
Just route all content through china.
Hah! I never thought I'd see a 'Protect the CHILDREN, think of the CHILDREN!' argument on Slashdot!
Obscene material is a joke. The FCC tried to regulate 'bad language' as obscene on the radio. Then they tried to do it on TV. They fail, and fail, and fail, yet they try again.
What you essentially posted is that the Government can't back free speech because free speech contains obscenity. The constitution has something to say about that.
Why do you want the government raising your children? Why don't you watch what they listen to, or monitor their use of the computer? You're probably the same kind of person who blames TV when their kid learns something vulgar, when in reality the kid learned it from some other kid at school.
Trying taking responsibility for what your kids are doing, and let the government worry about free speech, not obscenity.
And your red herring arguments get you nowhere here.
Not only is the original article extremely vague, it's also completely wrong (thank you journalist without a clue, but you better stick to reporting local tea parties).
25Mhz bandwidth at 2.155 GHz
Good idea if they use Time Modulated Ultrawide band. http://roboeco.com/
The Future is already here, just unevenly distributed... THE ROBOTIC WAGELESS ECONOMY NOW! http://RoboEco.com/slash
I think not, can you say noise? Anyone that has used 10 meters can tell you during the sunspot high the skip is so bad that it can make local contacts almost impossible. You would have a guy in Moscow trying to connect to a hot spot in Dallas.
I know the FCC does some strange things at times. And I know that the censorship isn't exactly what I'd pick for my regular internet connection.
However, I know that when I'm working from my laptop while waiting at the mechanic, it'd be nice to have ANY cheap / free internet connection. $60/month for unlimited internet through the cellphone networks is too expensive for my needs...
"I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use." Probably the stuff that's on the porno rack at your liquor store.
not bowlderize.
Well, I'd start with the Torah, Bible & Koran, and then go from there.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
The foreigners we gotta beat up now are terrrists. Which are a lot like obscenity now that I think of it, cause ive no idea what the hell a terrrrist is, but I know one when I see one.
Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
Unfortunately the FCC has 'dynamically' enforced 'obscene' content over over regulated airwaves before. What it amounts to legally is that they determine something falls under their regulations, then they act on it. While I do not believe they typically have ulterior motives, it is true that they are not always correct.
This means that the 'offending' party would need to challenge their decision in court (and win), in order for their applied definition of obscenity to either;
a) be found innacurate because society doesn't feel the item in question was obscene, or
b) it actually was obscene
While I feel obscenity laws have a place in our society, I promote the idea that those laws should be enforced by a jury of AVERAGE citizens -- not some kind of religious ideologists that only rule (ie. judge/jury/executioner) from their perspective.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
I agree with some of your points, but what is an "open source mesh broadcast tower"? Do you mean a tower that has a mesh node on it that is controlled by open source software? If that is all you are looking for, you could probably build it with existing wifi equipment and a tower like hams use for HF antennas, the trick is convincing all of your neighbors to get similar systems so that your node has other nodes to be a mesh with. Plus someone still has to have an internet connection with this setup, but you could build it if you really want it. It would probably cost the equivalent of 5 years of DSL service for one node especially if you have to get a tower over 50'.
" I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use. "
Err, hasn't obsene already been defined as "more than three fingers"???
The FCC will treat it like TV/Radio, and make sure that nothing can exist but the same type of pasteurized commercial crap which passes for television.
Why don't they filter "obscene" content from the telephone system? How is the concept of the internet as a two way medium for communications to grasp?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
If you can develop the tech to actually block something deemed obscene, then you will have the tech to block movies, music, art, etc. The reason is that obscenity definition changes almost as movies do. Who ever comes up with this, will almost certainly be expected to censor on the general internet.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The FCC has finally discovered a way to get all the nimwits using un-encrypted protocols to encrypt!
Next up are the ISPs of course.
Quick question: Why isn't there an encryption bit in the IP header?
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
Just about all of the stuff that I do online wouldn't really fall under the realm of obscene. Slashdot, Google, Wikipedia, other nerdy websites are relatively clean. Even most game sites should be fine. I guess a lot of it depends how strict the filter becomes, and if that filter is too tight for me.
Well if there were enough nodes, we wouldn't need an internet connection. It would be its own pseudo-internet. Those who wanted a website to be broadcast, could set their servers up directly connected to their own little tower.
The cost argument is true - right now. The cost is coming down on all wireless broadcast technology, and the performance is going up. How long will it be, really, until something like this is entirely do-able?
Your right, getting my neighbors on board would be the hard part. If the government got behind it, it could be done much quicker. Maybe they could provide a small tax break for those willing to participate in it? That would get people on it right quick.
When using this service, who would I sue if I see something I'm offended by?
This isn't much different from broadcast TV, which is "free" to the consumer and restricted by the FCC in its content.
How is it going to be cost-efficient to filter all "obscene" content?
There's no way that anyone will come up with a cost-efficient way to filter things that will both a) filter enough obscene content and b) not block a whole heck of a lot of legit content. The difficulty of doing so with text alone is high enough. Throw in images, and you're dealing with a problem that will require a lot of processing. With the proliferation of internet video, however, this is going to be just too hard to accomplish.
Everyone is bitching about filtering...
I'm still stuck at the technological hurdle of actually being able to _implement_ such filters in the first place, given that it's an NP-incomplete problem.
It's all well and good to scream "protect the children!" at the top of your lungs, but what technology are you proposing to identify and interdict obscene content?
-- Terry
the only good reason i can think of that they should ban "obscene content" is because it uses unnecessary bandwidth. but other stuff does much more.
but i wonder whether they would block bittorrent, etc...
Those of us who think they know everything annoy those of us who do.
Meanwhile the USA is 43rd out of 45 major nations in terms of internet speed ... and wireless speed.
...
Face it, a fraction of bandwidth is not going to help us.
What would help us would be a govt that cares about America instead of lining their comrades' pockets
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Oh, wait, this is a service the FCC will approve only if it is offered for "free"? Then I guess it will be a SPAM sponsored service.
At least there will be some motivation to filter unpaid spam...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
While I feel obscenity laws have a place in our society
Really? Where? I've looked all through the First Amendment, and I don't see any exceptions for obscenity, indecency, profanity, pornography, or "protecting the children."
Any laws passed which regulate obscenity in publicly-funded media are explicitly unconstitutional. And no, I don't really care what the Supreme Court says; I was capable of reading plain English in the first grade.
I promote the idea that those laws should be enforced by a jury of AVERAGE citizens -- not some kind of religious ideologists that only rule (ie. judge/jury/executioner) from their perspective.
Average citizens are religious ideologues. I have the right to be tried by a jury of my peers. Such people are not my peers.
Probably Janet Jackson's boob.
"I wonder what definition of "obscene" the FCC would like to use."
Probably the one they already use to charge violators such as Howard Stern, as well as the violators' station of origin, up to US$250K per incident. I'm not sure where it is in their regs (which I do know are online) but I recall quite clearly the sign in the studio booth at WUVT that reminded me constantly of the sword hanging over me.
What's always bothered me about the regs is the relaxation of the rules after 10 PM. When I was broadcasting, I had simultaneous netcast. After 10 PM where the station is (Blacksburg VA, eastern time) is only after 7 PM on the Left Coast (ie. pacific time). After 10 PM where? Was I simultaneously legal in Virginia but breaking the law in California?
Apply that now to on-demand, statically stored material which may or may not be infringing depending on the material and time of request. It's always before 10 PM someplace, so the owner may be liable according to the location of the requester. You can bet this is the way things would fall, because the alternative is to say 'it's AFTER 10 PM someplace', making the regs moot and removing a potential source of enforcement as well as income.
Oh yeah, and the context of the offending material matters. You can play hip hop and rap on air after 10 PM local and get away with broadcasting 2 "motherfuckers" and 5 "niggers" per minute, but try to say one of either yourself and see what it costs you. In the case of the latter, that may include body parts depending on your own color. The context of your reception can also matter, hence a "researcher" is supposed to be able to access an "obscene" web site for academic purposes without fear of reprisal. Yeah, right.
Personally I prefer Larry Flint's editorialized definition of "obscene" which puts murder and such well before sex in terms of badness. If that were used, you'd never be able to access most commercial news outlets, or much common TV or theatrical material. So sad that killing is not just accepted but expected, and fucking is outlawed.
OOPS, I think I just made it impossible for you to access this in the archives should the regulation of the proposed bandwidth go through. We'll see.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If that ever happens I'd donate to the FCC.
--and, for my purposes, Tracy Gill would also count as Alyson Hannigan ;)
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Are a guarantee that the biggest fucking idiots on slashdot are going to go post crazy.
However the FCC didn't apply any of those to the Janet Jackson Wardrobe Malfunction. Which was not a malfunction, Justin Timberlake intentially exposed her breast. I don't think any of the prongs can be applied in this case. However under the Bush admin all it takes is a few Christian Conservatives to complain to the FCC to issue a fine or for there to be hearings on something they consider indecent.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Wouldn't it be great to have a free wireless network available virtually nationwide, regardless of filtering, for the simple purpose of online connected devices? Alarm clocks that gather local news and weather, refrigerators that order milk for you when you run out, an oven that preheats when you signal it from your car on the way home... none of these tasks need tons of bandwidth, nor do they depend on having uncensored access. I think this free wireless might take these sorts of things from the realm of science fiction, or at least hardcore geeks, to the hands of the masses.
I turn on broadcast TV and radio today, and I note that I still can't hear any "bad language". I even learn that the FCC is slapping massive fines on anybody who utters such "bad language".
Failed? Really? Wouldn't that imply 'not successful'?
Is it ironic that the nation that holds free speech in the most esteem has (one of) the strictest censorship bureaus?
Never did anybody other than retarded atheists with nothing else to do claim that christians or jews say the earth is 6000 years old.
There are plenty of Young Earth Creationist Christians who believe the earth was created in 4004 BCE, making the earth 6000 years old. By saying atheists all came up with it you're showing your ignorance.
As for political, yes, it has changed the face of politics for good.
Burning witches on the stake was good? The crusades were good? Queen Isabella of Castile forcibly making Jews and Muslims either convert or leave Spain was good? The persecution of Gnostic Christians by the church was good? If you mean religion brought us democracy and liberty, you're wrong there too. Democracy and liberty came out of the Age of Enlightenment which was preceded by the Age of Reason in Europe. Both were rebellions from church authority. Among the Founding Fathers of the USA, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamen Franklin were supporters of Enlightenment, which gave rise to Classical Liberalism, meaning liberty and small governemnt.
Where is compassion without christianity or judaism I ask you?
Compassion is partially what Buddhism is about. Specifically Buddhism is about eliminating suffering. The Four Noble Truths focuses on suffering. Islam too deals with compassion and suffering.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Filter out obscene content? I aint touchin that with a 25 MHz, err foot, pole
What other set of beliefs other than the abrahamic religions have a strong sense of compassion, really now?
It's already been pointed out to you but I'll do it again, Buddhism is partially about compassion as is Islam.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It's perfectly fine if it's in the Bible, Koran, or Talmud.
torture followed by bloody beheading would be just fine.
So is this.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Obviously you don't know how the rules used to be.
A married couples on TV didn't share a single bed until about the 70's. There used to be rules that if one of the two was sitting on a bed, the other had to be standing-they couldn't even SIT on the same bed.
Elvis' hip gyrations used to cause TV stations to only portray him...from the waste up! How pathetic are all of those manipulations, considering where we are in TV today?
There was an episode of South Park that said shit, what, 147 times or something?
Wasn't it recently ruled that you're allowed to show pornography after 10 pm on public airwaves? I can't seem to find a link right now, maybe that decision was reversed. Anyone know?
Music is only censored on the radio by some radio stations - they do it so they don't receive complaints by dumb ass ministers (like what happened in the 60's). But popular stations, especially big ones in LA, play what they want because they have the money to fight that kind of crap.
Just like prohibition, any government body that tries to regulate morality eventually fails. We should just see the trend, and start writing the FCC and calling shinanegans. Unless you're willing to live in a wholly repressive state, like Communist China or some oppressive Islamic regime.
25 Mhz is 2 Mhz below the CB band and many truckers use modified cbs that go even below that freq and using as much as 1kw linear amps, so THATS nto going to be good for reception huh?
I was thinking of the cost of the tower itself. The cost of the actual transceiver will become negligible as you said but the cost of steel is going up and the coax is horrible expensive for the 2.4GHz band (I guess they aren't talking about 25MHz; good cause doing this over HF is hella stupid). If you were allowed to use UHF broadcast TV stations in extreme rural areas it would make things a lot easier. The tax break is a good idea.
from the beginning, good broadband would be tens of dollars per year, instead of hundreds.
"What I wish I'd thought of when I still had a body that could do it"
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Charlotte, NC... back in the mid 1990's had a city government-run internet provider, "Charlotte's Web". It, too, was heavily bowdlerized.
It failed miserably... fortunately.
We did that.
They were called BBS's. They worked great for their time.
We didn't need the government then and we sure as hell don't need them now. We can do it fine on our own, thanks.
Republicans censor to keep Jesus from being offended at all our swears.
Democrats censor to make a shiny happy world in which to raise your perfect whitebread children, free from swears.
This doesn't make any sense. Pornography =! obscene content. Obscene content is, in theory, not allowed on the Internet as is.
You know, if this deal were taken up, it would likely have a good effect on Internet porn since the Court is unlikely to apply the Miller standard to the Internet for a variety of reasons. Huuuge risk though.
You could just track what comes up on /b/ and use that as the basis for the filtering. Probably pretty accurate.
J
Here I believe obscene means having to pay for wireless spectrum that you're required to provide a free service on.
Of course the FCC is still scratching its head over why they couldn't get anybody to bid on spectrum that was dedicated for public safety use.
Anybody else think the FCC has lost the plot ?
Probably none of the seven dirty words of George Carlin fame. No porn sites either. But it'd be worthwhile.
The FCC charging people for air and forcing them to redistribute it for free. You can enforce all the archaic rules you like when you pay for your own infrastructure instead of making others pay to do all the work for you.
If this public disservice ever comes to be, I'm going to use it solely for running an encrypted porn site.
I just read Slashdot for the articles.
there's something fundamentally wrong with the FCC and it's that they'd let anyone broadcast on any frequency, period. I'm part of that fringe minority of conspiracy wackos that think RF is lethal and anything that produces any form of electro-magnetic undulation should be banned out right. Starting with this blabbery-mouthed computer I'm writing this message on. Send it all back to hell were it came from!
25MHz will travel the world under the right conditions...
Just slap dan's guardian on the router, and you will get no porn. You won't even be able to go to the US postal service website or do a Google search! That's efficiency
My definition of obscenity is apparently quite different from the FCC's.
In my community, we object to violent pornography like 24, Nancy Grace, and Greta van Susteren (fiction or nonfiction, it's getting hard to tell the difference nowadays).
In my community, we object to inane reality TV and government propaganda thinly disguised as political commentary or "breaking news alerts".
In my community, we can handle the fucking profanity and fucking kinky sex and shit like that. We're all fucking adults. Newsflash: the Internet is for thinking adults.
In my community, we're going to continue to use our computers to talk amongst ourselves from now on. Those who object can Get The Fuck Out.
if you don't like it, create your own sheltered little community. Nobody's stopping you.
I am very anti-drugs and anti-porn, but these attempts to censor the internet are just stupid (or evil). Even with drugs, attempts to censor substances that might be abused is pointless. If you can't get cocaine (a substance quite healthful and safe in the very small naturally occurring quantities found in coca leaves), there are the other spices in the spice rack (I have a friend who blew her mind abusing nutmeg), or you can pick green mulberries (which are hallucinogenic). Our heighborhood is awash in green mulberries this time of year. Chop down all the trees! Think of the children!
The censorship of marijuana is especially ridiculous. In addition to being a *highly* useful plant for a host of purposes not involving getting stoned (which I consider abuse), it is so pervasive here in Virginia that police stations can't keep it from growing wild at their stations. Absolutely *anyone* could be charged with "production" of marijuana and their property seized at the whim of an officer.
The situation with porn is the same. The abuse makes the porn. Broadcast TV could be reasonably censored because the amount of content was small, and personally reviewed. I.e., a human made the judgment call as to whether a scene would "cause someone to stumble" I Cor 8:4-13. The best that can be done on the internet is to have a blacklist of truly evil IPs.
That would be BowDLERise.
Of the "People of the Book" I'd say that Islam is the new one, not to start listing the newer ones, Ba'Hai, L.D.S., &c.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Really now, they already have this in China, and people get around it all the time. If this goes through, someone's going to make a fortune selling VPN tunnels that get you out onto the "real" Internet.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
So, just declare that something has no artistic/political value/is too shocking and it's obscenity. Censorship in one easy step.
Just thought I'd try to explain mrchaotica's point of view.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Ban all commercial content and commercial activities.
Fundamentalist movements attempt to return to a (usually mythical) "pure" version of whatever they are fundamentalizing (usually religion, sometimes culture or politics) that they believe existed in the past.
Since most people seem to believe that the Internet, in the early days, was a good and friendly place populated by virtuous scientists who never had flame wars or posted porn (I was around back then, and it wasn't like that really) and it was the coming of the Hucks that ruined the Internet's mythical purity, we're ripe for an Internet Fundamentalist movement.
That won't completely eliminate nudity or sex, but let's face it... nudity and sex aren't actually obscene in and of themselves. Most Americans would greatly benefit from being able to separate violence, commercialism, sex, nudity, and obscenity. Popular culture mixes them all up; you can show violent rape on prime-time US television but you can't explicitly show a happily married, successful heterosexual couple having oral sex.
Doesn't solve the goatse problem, but stiff enforcement would remove the commercial incentives for the ickiest kinds of human exploitation. And you have to admit that it would be cool to have a noticeably different alternative Internet!
No, actually, it's people like you who do not understand the responsibilities that go hand in hand with your rights that are causing this country to become totalitarian. Without fools like you who don't understand your rights, there wouldn't be any recourse for the totalitarians because the Constitution would stymie them. Not knowing what the Constitution actually says and means (you're wrong about it so far, all the insults aside) makes things worse, not better.
So blame yourself asshole, you're ignorance and stupidity are to blame.
If you were educated, then you'd know that. The LOCAL community decides. You know, "the people" as mentioned in the Constitution.
Of course, you'll probably have some idiotic objection to people exercising the rights they're given, that's just as wrong as your other retarded Constitutional arguments.
Come back when you actually have some idea what the fuck you're talking about.
So, let me see if I have this straight:
Exactly why would anyone want to pay for this???
Simply put. If this happens they it'll be justification for the same on other spectrums...then anything the FCC has jurisdiction over...then anything that touches anything the FCC has jurisdiction over.
Someone, somewhere needs to tell the FCC where it can stuff it's rulebook.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
the only way out is Jesus
I believe in neither Jesus nor sin.
- I believe this is the core assertion of the "belief system,"
Which believe system, Christianity? Like others I don't believe Jesus was the Son of God. I don't even believe in "God", I'm agnostic, I don't believe in any god or disbelieve in any. As for Jesus, if there really was such a person who lived I think he may of been a great teacher. But nothing more. I don't even believe in the spirit or a soul. I used to but I lost my beliefs after I had an accident.
FalconShould there be a Law?