Slashdot Mirror
China Praises UK Internet Censorship Plan
mormop writes "The Chinese government has praised UK Prime Minister David Cameron's plan for censoring social networking sites at times when the government feels threatened, believing it legitimizes China own behavior. Quoting Chinese state media website Global Times: 'Britain's new attitude will help appease the quarrels between East and West over the future management of the Internet. As for China, advocates of an unlimited development of the Internet should think twice about their original ideas.'"
You know you are succeeding in fascism if China praises You. The Standard & Poors of Fascism.
Now the UK should know there doing something wrong when China Praises you for anything.
Just because others do it doesnt make the position more legit.
In related news Germany called from the late 30's; they think that your immigration politics are awesome!
Seriously, how far down the road are you when you get that kind of support from China.
Next up: North Korea praises your foreign politics.
Notice the important qualifiers there. They're looking at whether it would be right. They're also specifically considering those communications used to support violence, disorder, or criminal behavior.
We can, and should, debate the legitimacy of what is being considered but the conversation is underminded when we allow ourselves the thrill of shrill, non-factual, accusations.
In related news Germany called from the late 30's; they think that your immigration politics are awesome!
Oh the Nazi's would have loved our immigration politics over the last decade or so.
This sig has been distributed under the Creative Commons license.
Just like the War against Terror allowed everyone to justify punitive actions against their own "internal terrorists", like in Chechnya, and more recently Syria. Great - thanks a bunch Mr. Cameron. Next time, think before you open your mouth, please.
When I first read this headline I could have sworn it was an Onion article.
Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
london was a joke.. kids stealing consumer-bullshit they couldn't afford...
i am still waiting for the germans to really lose it... for example over the eurobonds they're forcing on them right now... that is like a treaty of versailles that forces them to burn their german euro's... there is 60+ years of anger in the german mind over living in a parliamental dictatorship that claims it has to be that way because they still have so many nazi-genes in them that even something like a referendum on the federal level is verboten... xD
you might like that political experiment called europe... having a single currency... buying things in the US for small money...
but when the germans, finally, get angry.. europe will be over...
i tell you.. the germans.. they're 90 million in a small country... and they're already fucking angry... when they lose it.. it will be the beginning of the end.. or else they will have to pay for everything their and other european goverments have done wrong...
lets hope they go for peaceful protests instead of voting nazis and let them do the cleanup...
As time goes on, more and more I get the feeling China realizes the absurdity of the world and wants to exploit it to their own gain. It takes some serious gall to go and embarrass your rival by associating them with yourself, but China just managed an astounding success at it.
Great Intellect...
And why shouldn't they? My dry cleaners son got the hell beaten out of him because some looters wanted to steal their commercial sewing machine. What, did the looter want to be considerate and grab something for his mum? We had an incident right on our doorstep that didn't make the news here in London where a middle aged gent didn't want his wheelie bin stolen to be used by the looters to transport their ill gotten goods, so he went out and told them not to take it. Their response? They stabbed him. He's in hospital in intensive care right now and may not live.
So make the bastards pay for their own bullet? Absolutely.
Incidently, Looter != Protester
2 days of Looting happened before the government was confident to make the decision that it was Looting, rather than a protest against the police shooting a guy who pulled a gun on them. Tottenham burned on the Saturday, and the police thought it was an unfortunate situation where a protest got out of hand.
I have lived in several countries, and I can definitely say that even with all the cameras etc, the UK is more considerate of human rights and people's freedom than the good ol' US of A.
If anything, the police here are hamstrung by the law, and it should be loosened somewhat to let them do their job.
Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
I'm shocked that any western leader would not know by heart, that censorship is a no no. And is't barely 6 months Egypt's dictator was lamented for doing the exact same thing.
I'm equally shocked that the chineese would not notice that their support is not exactly helpin Cameron either. This reminds me of when Bush's war on terror gave Putin an excuse to wage his own war on terror in Chechnya.
When will our leaders learn that merely being elected doesn't make you an automatic "Good Guy" in the eyes of the world.
- in related news, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad parises Cameron's commitment to uphold law and order (by any means).
Run with the lemmings, and you'll get your feet wet.
Of course that's alright. Censorship with qualifiers is all fine and good, right?
Actually, yes. For example, the constitution of my country guarantees me freedom of expression but such a freedom is applied only to the cases where I don't hurt others. e.g., it would be expression of my political opinion to punch certain representatives in the face but it's still good that my opinions can't be used as an excuse for hurting others. Similarly, the government shouldn't suppress people's ability to express their political opinions but they can and should restrict people's communications when it comes to planning crimes that cause harm to other people, such as openly planning violent riots.
The question is where to draw the line but I don't think it's that difficult: If you openly plan action that in itself is illegal, government can restrict that. If you don't, they can't.
China welcomes our new censorship overlords!
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
No, it isn't necessary. I welcome a world where possession and distribution of child pornography and hate literature, and production of hate literature are entirely legal.
Are you so well trained that you cannot conceive of someone not finding this idea as horrifying as you do?
The definition of child porn is also open to quite a bit of debate in some societies.
The problem I have with any kind of censorship is the definition of the things that should be censored. Invariably, you'll end up in a mess. Where do you draw the line? Legal texts are rarely "kinda-sorta-maybe", things are legal or illegal, but that doesn't always apply easily to the real world
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Cameron has no intention of following through with this: he's just playing up to the hard-of-thinking Daily Mail-reading reactionaries. Any such law would be smacked down by Strasbourg immediately.
Just as he had no intention of using rubber bullets or water cannon on looters, nor any intention of bringing back hanging.
The man is a despicable mountebank of the lowest order.
I despair for UK politics: the Labour party has been eviscerated by its own class enemy, the Liberal party has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage, and the Tory party has nothing to offer but greenwash and moronic rabble-rousing.
Now it's just a case of voting for your lizard to stop the wrong lizard getting in.
China has called itself Communist since 1949, but like most "Communist" countries, it hasn't really BEEN communist for most of that time.
You do realize that "hate literature" is what is known as an "opinion", right? Are you really saying that governments should (I know many already do, but I'm talking about what the right thing to do is) have laws legislating what opinions you are allowed to have? Orwell had a term for that - thought crime.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I can actually hear Palpatine: Good! Your hate has made you powerful. Now, fulfill your destiny and take North Korea's place at my side!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"... when your enemies praise your architecture of aggression"
Sorry to hear about your friends - hopefully they recover. That is exactly why it pains me to see the anti-gun mentality of the UK - so much of this could've easily been prevented (or rapidly stopped) if citizens and shop owners could have used guns to deter or fight back against the thieves.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Did anyone notice the unintended irony of the word "groupthink" in the Global Times article?
The economic and social turmoil in the US, Britain and France might trigger a worldwide groupthink and introspection on the boundaries of democracy and freedom of speech.
Some of you may not have seen this. It's just a bit of fun.
But too true.
http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/
I'm not sure I agree with the concept of "legitimate censorship". I think actions should be illegal, not thoughts. I certainly believe that the production of child pornography should be illegal (and it is, under laws pertaining to child abuse) and therefore I don't really see an issue with distribution and possession of it also being illegal. That isn't censorship, that is simply the application of relevant, existing law. The point is that someone had to actually *do* something illegal in the first place.
I would be far less certain about (for example) hentai or other images of children which were created without any illegal act. I think being sexually attracted to children is a sickness that requires treatment, but only *acting* on it is a crime. I probably think about committing murder several times a day, but I'm not a murderer until I do it.
Similarly with Hate/Offensive speech. If I'm telling people to go and kill infidels or burn down buildings, that is incitement to commit an offence, which is (and should be) illegal. If I'm telling people that I don't like brown people and neither should they...that would be an opinion. If people agree with me and decide to go and blow up a mosque then they have committed a crime and deserve to feel the full weight of the law. But should I be charged with something? What if I said I don't like politicians and a listener shoots Andy Burnham?
Censorship is a poor replacement for enforcement of the law and until someone commits an act which is provably against the interests of the society those laws are designed to protect, they should be left the hell alone to do what they want.
I think actions should be illegal, not thoughts.
That's sort of odd considering some of the things you said in other parts of your comment. Unless I somehow misunderstood you, of course.
I certainly believe that the production of child pornography should be illegal (and it is, under laws pertaining to child abuse) and therefore I don't really see an issue with distribution and possession of it also being illegal. That isn't censorship, that is simply the application of relevant, existing law. The point is that someone had to actually *do* something illegal in the first place.
What? It's censoring information/content. I'd say that it is indeed censorship (whether or not you agree with it is a different matter). And the fact that someone did something illegal to make it doesn't make it not censorship to censor it.
Similarly with Hate/Offensive speech. If I'm telling people to go and kill infidels or burn down buildings, that is incitement to commit an offence, which is (and should be) illegal.
Whether or not it should be illegal is subjective, I think. However, it is still censorship to suppress such speech, even if it is illegal.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
They do it openly and bluntly. We do it secretly and sneakily.
I dunno, I'd prefer the former. At least people would more easily know how they're being imprisoned.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So production of child pornography is illegal, but financing production of child pornography and profiting from it is perfectly fine?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
You're argument is deeply flawed. Guns could've quite easily made things worse by the same people being stupid enough to loot also being stupid enough to shoot people without good reason. How many people were injured/killed in the New Orleans flooding during the looting?
Most of the civilized world does not ban "hate literature," and I am sorry if you live in an uncivilized part of it. That leaves child pornography, which is simply a case of "think of the children," and the effectiveness and purpose of its banning has been thoroughly disproved already.
Censorship is never right. I believe I have, in these two posts, refuted every case of it to some degree. It is not necessary for society, it is not healthy for society, and we're nearing a time when those who support it will find themselves in front of a judge. Please ask Mr. Mubarak how it worked for him.
Great Intellect...
Bullshit. Guns give the advantage to the person who draws first. Is that likely to be the gang of looters running around with guns in hand, or the guy sitting in his house? Sure, he could open fire from his window, but if he did then he'd see half a dozen people shooting back. Who is more likely to want to shoot to kill: Someone who is defending their not-very-valuable property, or someone who is on an adrenalin high from smashing, burning, and stealing?
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
The issue is a whole lot more complicated if you actually know anything about Marxism.
Suffice to say, none of the so-called "Communist" countries that have yet existed were anything like what Marxism was (rather unrealistically) supposed to be like. Further, many of them only used the title of "Communist" nominally, as denotation of a goal. For example, the S in USSR stands for socialist. They used the term interchangeably during and after Stalin, but really they are not. China only came about being after both terms got mixed together in the WWII blender.
My personal opinion on the matter is that socialism came far too soon for its own good. We're only now seeing the rise of technology that could truly lead to a post-scarcity society, which is something of a requirement in my mind for socialism to actually work. There is also the fact that it appeals to the "dumb majority," aka working class and below in third world countries. As you can easily see in Africa, ideology doesn't matter if the people will go along with whatever insane dictator comes along.
Long story short; you can call yourself an rocket scientist, and you can even be called one by your friends, but that doesn't mean you should expect to be hired by NASA any time soon.
Great Intellect...
Shouldn't you be complaining about the people doing the bad thing, rather than the people who gave them a (poor) excuse to do a bad thing?
Great Intellect...
At what point would you have called it "true communism"?
Oh really? Here I thought Canada was quite civilized, yet we have anti-hate-speech laws.
Germany has laws against Nazi propaganda.
In fact the only part of the world that I know of where hate speech is legal is the US.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
All the more reason to divorce the tools and the speech itself in the arguments. I don't know exactly what the wording of the 'social media' conversations was, but did they actually incite rioting, violence, or vandalism? Specifically? Or was it more a case of organising protest, assembly, without specific intent to cause harm or damage. And if it wasn't done by social media, could it have been done phone, placards, posters, or standing on a street corner shouting out? If the latter, then blocking social media sites in a crisis is censorship. If the former, then there are already laws to deal with hate speech, incitement to commit violence, conspiracy to commit vandalism or whatever.
Social media hasn't fundamentally changed our abilities to organise protests or assemblies for any purpose. It HAS changed the speed with which such organization can take place. Governments have been dealing with organised protests for since the inception of the city state, and probably before. The problem is that social media facilitates small rapidly self-organising groups which can disband equally quickly, and governments, being the big slow lumbering beasts they are, cannot react quickly enough.
On the other hand, with the ability to rapidly propagate information, spontaneous mobs (and I mean mobs, not simply assemblies or crowds) form much more easily, and grow much more quickly. Not good! Blocking social media would reduce this effect, but only if done so in time, and a government almost certainly doesn't have the ability to respond and initiate blocking mechanisms quickly enough for this to be effective, leaving us two possibilities. A Government that's too slow, or a government that's quick to shut down social media, almost pre-emptively, which is essentially censorship. Also, not good!
Basically it comes down to the fact that governments must catch up with the mobile internet enabled world, not try to drag their citizens kicking and screaming back into the 20th century.
>Banning of child pornography
Numerous studies have shown that banning child pornography possession actually exacerbates the problem of child mollestation and worse the problem of production of child pornography (by making the possession illegal you drive up the price - much like drug prohibition - thus making the industry more attractive). Currently some of the greatest security minds alive are getting very rich building smuggling networks for child pornography. The money is there because it's illegal. If possession is legal the market value drops massively and so the production and distribution is far less attractive. You don't NEED censorship to deal with the production - it's already illegal because it involves molestation. The more valuable the product is however, the more likely people who may otherwise by afraid of the law will consider the risk worthwhile - especially those not directly involved in the activities but rather acting as secondaries for a slice of the pie (like those security experts).
So if anything - censoring child pornography has made the problem of child pornography WORSE.
>Banning of hate literature
This is another example where the "common sense" prediction is false. Banning hate literature does not in any way reduce the presence of hate, all it does is drive hate-groups further underground. This gives them a sense of legitimacy, increases the risk of them resorting to violent and criminal actions (and feeling justified - every hate group believes they are reacting to persecution rather than the cause of it). Instead by not restricting their speech, we are capable of debating with them - which means we may actually convince a few (impossible to do when people don't want to admit they hold a certain view in public).
Basically both your cases are prime examples of why some of us are opposed to all censorship. Without exception any censorship always exacerbates whatever problem it was meant to address and without exception it always causes massive additional problems which can never be fully predicted upfront.
Therefore it makes no sense to ever be in favor of any censorship.
To use a popular slogan version: censorship is always more obscene than that which it censors.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
...
I certainly believe that the production of child pornography should be illegal (and it is, under laws pertaining to child abuse) and therefore I don't really see an issue with distribution and possession of it also being illegal. That isn't censorship, that is simply the application of relevant, existing law. The point is that someone had to actually *do* something illegal in the first place.
What? It's censoring information/content. I'd say that it is indeed censorship (whether or not you agree with it is a different matter). And the fact that someone did something illegal to make it doesn't make it not censorship to censor it.
Where the production of child pornography is concerned one needs to remember that the real crime is child abuse, not the recording of it. Outlawing the distribution and possession is an attempt to reduce to market, and thus incentive to commit the original crime. Like banning trade in ivory. Also consider that it's a fair assumption that NO child WANTS, and hence does not consent to having, images of their abuse distributed. Is it censorship if you break in to my house and snap a photo of me naked, and I then take your camera and destroy the photo? So you can look at the law here is not so much censorship, but rather an intelligent default, considering in most jurisdictions minors are not legally able to give consent, regarding consent to distribute from all parties involved in the production of the material, as well as at attempt to reduce the size of a market for truly despicable things. Is it censorship by definition, yes. Is it being censored? No, really that's just a side effect of something else.
So, you protect those who think differently, by expelling those you disagree with? You've got a sense of morality there that Stalin would approve of.
Great Intellect...
You're assuming that the production, distribution and possession of child pornography all happens in the same country, which is rarely the case. If you were involved in law enforcement in a country where there is no production, but a lot of possession, what would be your response? Leave it, it's the other country's problem? Or go after the paedophiles in your own country who are providing a market to child abusers?
Actually the so-called communist countries called themself "socialists", only in western countries they are called communists. Communism was the next evolutionary step of the society, which was not achieved yet. It was imagined as a society without any unequalities and without a need for money, with abundant resources and people not caring about their own consumption or wealth, but about the society as a whole. There were failed attempts to get closer to this, for example bread given away for free, but that did not work too well (too much bread was thrown away). So it was said that the society is not ready for this yet.
It is kinda funny how much the Star Trek Federation seems to be real communism.
The point where it was NOT just state capitalism. That's about all that the USSR ever achieved as well.
Replacing many corrupt employers with ONE corrupt employer is not communism at all, not even a little bit and that's all that any of the so-called "communist states" ever did.
True communism can only be anarchic, which rules them all out. The very concept demands that the means of production be owned AND MANAGED BY the people who DO the production.
You may agree or not agree with that ideal - but it's a simple fact that no so-called "communist state" has ever achieved it, or even really tried to.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
The original article is an opinion piece. It ends with a little editor's note that it represents the author's point of view only. That's not the same as the Chinese government congratulating their new UK comrad.
"We've always been at war with Eurasia and we've always been allies of Eastasia."
Qualifier: I'm not a Tory and dislike David Cameron.
But I'd give David Cameron the benefit of the doubt in this case. He has not said the government will ban social media or block it during riots. He has just said that he will ask a group to consider whether it would be right. The conclusion may well be "no it isn't right", but as of yet we have absolutely no idea how broad or limited the conclusions will be.
In any case it is important to consider the cultural differences between Britain (and in this case I believe Western Europe) as opposed to the US. Europeans tend to have a more relaxed attitude to free speech. Most consider the right approach to be Free speech with qualifiers, i.e. slander, privacy, inciting hate, child pornography, truth in advertisement, etc. There is always a discussion as to where you draw the line, but this isn't isn't usually considered a binary choice.
I recognise that the US may have a larger share of people who believe that any sort of censorship is wrong, and this is cool. But in this case it doesn't really matter what you think. England (I'm going to assume England only here and ignore the subtleties of UK vs Scots law, etc) is not the US and its laws should surely be representative of its own people?
How is this relevant to the discussion, you may ask? Well, it may be utterly impossible that blocking social media during a riot is compatible with the US libertarian view of free speech, but it isn't totally out of the question that Cameron's group can come up with a plan to block social media during riots which is compatible with the majority definition of free speech in England.
I am, in fact, sceptical that he may come up with a sensible solution which involves social media blockage, but I'm willing to hear what his working group has to say on the matter before I make up my mind.
England (officially London, but events are spread all over the place) hosts the 2012 Olympics and the government must be scared spitless that there will be a repeat of last weeks "minor difficulties" either during or in the run-up to the games, when all the world's media will be present and reporting live. They don't really care that a bunch of shops got burned and others looted, sicne there's no election for some years - but they do care about their world image.
I think we can therefore say fairly accurately that there will be massive restrictions on the freedoms that citizens have, to ensure there is no possibility of any disruptions to the two weeks of running and jumping next summer (plus the paralymics, of course). The only question is: how much of that security clampdown will ever make it into the press?
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Because the government came in and confiscated their weapons - resulting in the usual situation of when only the criminals have guns, the law abiding citizens get fucked in the ass. We've had plenty of riots in the US without any large scale shootings because the ones rioting are typically too young to have guns or already have some sort of criminal record and are thus banned from buying guns. Try looking up crime statistics and compare that to ares that are gun free zones and states that allow concealed carry. Since the majority of states enacted concealed carry laws, which people like you claimed would result in mass murder, gun violence has gone DOWN - criminals are cowardly little punks and even their low IQ's cause them to think twice before messing with someone who might shoot them.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
You've clearly never been in a life threatening situation. Unless they have some severe mental deficiency (such as being a pacifist - and even then that's not always true) the person who's being attacked unjustly will normally fight quite hard to survive. The bully is just fighting for shits and giggles - the other person is fighting for their life and has much more to lose, thus much more motivation to do whatever it takes to win. You also clearly know very little about gun crime statistics in the US...
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Except that you're not paying attention to the scenario. The person was having his wheelie bin stolen. He was not in a live-threatening situation until after he decided to intervene, at which point he was stabbed. If the rioters had been armed, he'd have been shot instead. The rioters would most likely have already had their guns in their hands, so the only way for him to gain an advantage is to open fire from inside the house first.
If you think having a gun makes you safe against a gang of thugs with guns, then you're delusional.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
"You're not helping..."
This is true, but if europe wanted to or could accept or agree to be run better then it already would be being run better without the germans doing the running. or perhaps they would have got the germans in to run it, who knows...
Because of the typical german temperament, the running of germany suits the germans.
Because of the typical spanish temperament, the running of spain suits the spanish. If it didn't they would change it.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Also consider that it's a fair assumption that NO child WANTS, and hence does not consent to having, images of their abuse distributed.
We've had stories here of child porn laws used to charge guys whose 17-year-old girlfriends had sent them photos of themselves.
Outlawing the distribution and possession is an attempt to reduce to market, and thus incentive to commit the original crime
Is that sufficient grounds to allow censorship? Nixon could've argued that whoever was leaking information to the press was breaking the law, and so outlawing distribution and possession of that information was an attempt to reduce the market etc.
I am trolling
Language is defined by consensus, so these subjective terms pretty much have to apply to anyone who defines themselves as that. Same with christians or feminists or..., you don't get to say "oh they're not TRUE xs"
I am trolling
Because of the typical spanish temperament, the running of spain suits the spanish. If it didn't they would change it.
By and large they just waited for their dictator to die. But they went to a different system pretty quick as soon as he did so.
I am trolling
Comment removed based on user account deletion
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you. -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Except as you and all the other anti-gun fanatics keep missing out on, the people involved in riots usually (not always, but usually) are in one of two categories - 1) people too young to guy guns or 2) people with criminal records preventing them from buying guns. We've had plenty of riots in the US that didn't end in bloody massacres, and that's with around 40-45% of the adult population owning guns.
If you think telling people to just lay down and let their assailants do whatever they please without resisting, you're not only delusional in thinking that they'll be "kind", but you're a sociopath who wants to see innocent people get killed. Every time that there is a shooting in a "gun free" zone (such as the one in Norway), every person who voted for / lobbied for / supported creating a "defense free" zone should be charged with second degree murder, because they actively chose to make it impossible for those people to defend themselves.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Fine, then let's just say that Communism to the Chinese communist party clearly doesn't mean the same thing as the word in any dictionary nor does it match up with the way Marx defined it at all.
So yeah, Actually I do get to say that.Otherwise, we're speaking newspeak and Big Brother wins the war.
For perhaps the first couple milliseconds of it's existence. Really I just say most because I can't actually prove all.
I really think there aught to be a way to appropriately label news on slashdot in situations like this, where the original article is (as in this case) opinion passed off as fact or otherwise. Ether by moderation or by vote.
Otherwise slashdot acts as an amplifier of false or highly spun news... sure some readers might read the original article and realise that it's not true, but there are going to be many people who just browse over the summary, lightly accept what they read and move on... and regardless of not fully reading and judging the original article they will probably recall it assuming some level of legitimacy.
...I read the article and vote: Unreliable
Opposition party campaign managers are going to host a Thank You China themed brunch
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
German rulers don't respect their own people, let alone the rest of Europeans. They'd enslave us all, if they could. Which is what they're trying to do with all the strings attached to their "rescues". Nothing against the German people though, they're victims, too.
And by banning murder you drive up the price of assassinations. When one person getting killed, or one child being exploited is too many, the "driving up the price" argument doesn't hold much water.
Are you sure a government that allows it's citizens to be beaten, stabbed and stolen from with impunity for two days by the fringe element of society and only then comes in to enact new laws when your good and begging for their help is being "considerate of your rights"?
It's a reality on today's college campus. Deal with it. Let me guess, you're one of them, aren't you? Mad at being kept out, eh?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Re the 17 year old thing, I can't deny that the laws get abused or applied poorly, but my argument is that calling it censorship, although technically correct, really confuses the issue of child pornography and child abuse in general.
Re Nixon, the public interest argument already exists to take care of such situations. I fail to see the public interest that overrides the prevention of distributing child porn.
Okay, then. Let's see how far you're really ready to take that stance.
You agree that me shooting you should be illegal, I assume. Now, let's say that I point at you with a loaded gun, threaten to shoot you but then "pussy out" before actually pulling the trigger. Do you think that this should be completely legal and I shouldn't be punished in any way if I don't actually pull the trigger? I doubt you do. The thing is that by threatening you with a gun, I imply that I'm able and willing to commit a crime and I engage in risky behavior and thus cause you harm and terror even if I don't actually end up carrying it all out. That's why practically all countries recognize a crime that's called "illegal threat" or something along those lines.
Similarly, I believe you agree that a bunch of people breaking and entering into a shop to steal stuff in a time of civil unrest should be illegal... Do you really think that the same bunch of people organizing, planning and inciting that beforehand ("Let's break into [location] tonight at 11pm if no cops are around! We'll meet up 5 minutes earlier at [location]! Bring your friends!") should be legal if the action isn't carried out? That cops can't interfere before the first person actually breaks the window? The sole act of threatening such a crime causes harm to people (The police might need to put extra patrols to that area, the shopkeeper might need to hire extra guards, etc... Harm has been done even if the precautions taken end up with the action not taking place!).
We're all drawing the line at some point. Unless you think that there should be no such things as laws, you think that some actions should be illegal and some should be legal and you draw a line between them. I think that my stance of "You shouldn't be allowed to announce intent to commit illegal acts if such acts cause harm to someone, even if you end up pussying out" isn't any more arbitrary or fascistic that any other.
The line must be drawn here! This far and no further! -- Captain Picard
complementing you on your parenting skills.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So you only get a right to free speech if you can make a public interest argument for what you're saying?
I am trolling
Analogy fail.
What you describe is exactly what we want to have happen. The idea is to make the action that causes harm expensive, and the action that does not cause harm cheap. Thus, molestation should be made expensive (illegal) while possession should be made cheap (legal), discouraging people from causing harm to others.
Where your analogy fails is that murder is exactly the problem we are trying to prevent by making it expensive (illegal). The GP is making the distinction that possession of child porn is not the actual problem, molestation is.
Except that your analogy is flawed. Driving up the price of assasinations does not hugely increase the number of people who commit them. If anything it makes the market more exclusive.
In the case of child porn - there is a massive supporting market needed for it to happen, and that market is dependent on that high price. Driving it up means lots more gets made and distributed.
Shutting that down will greatly reduce the incidence.
Now I may agree that one is one too many, but I also know that even the most horrible police state won't achieve that. So we HAVE to be pragmatic and try to bring it to the lowest possible level. Providing true justice for those victims where we couldn't prevent it.
That's the other factor - those high prices buy the kind of minds and technology that lets the perpetrators get away. Without that support structure, many more of them would get caught, convicted and punished. When the law makes it less likely that victims will get justice and increases the number of victims in the first place it must be considered a failure.
If all the money we spend on prosecuting child-porn posession and trying to filter it was instead spent on investigating and prosecuting child-abuse cases we'd have a much higher arrest and conviction rate - and that would greatly reduce the rate of child abuse in the world.
You don't get to let more kids suffer without hope of their abusers being punished in the name of an all-or-nothing ideology.
You say my argument doesn't hold water, but the reality is you haven't offered anything better. The studies I refer to show that we could greatly reduce the problem with better use of resources. You have shown NOTHING. You demand a zero-rate, but you offer NO way to get there, while arguing with me and thus (presumably) supporting censorship - so your answer is that if we can't save EVERYBODY we should save NOBODY ?
Since we can't stop EVERY abuser before they do it, we should act in a stupid and emotional way rather than letting rational decisions allow us to protect as many children as possible ?
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
No, I am not one of them. I am extremely anti-fascist, as you could clearly see by all my other posts on the matter. That is exactly why I am anti-censorship as a rule. I am sorry if that's confusing to you, but the fallacy of "you protect their rights, so you must be one of them" is exactly how fascism always starts.
Also, I will point out that it is not a reality here in the United States. We have a relatively strong freedom of speech that all colleges must respect. And, lo and behold, we actually have less problems with right-wing fanatics here than in most countries that ban "hate literature," even though we're as a whole much more to the right than Europe. That might make some people wonder if that knee-jerk censorship is doing any good.
Great Intellect...
As much as the US might be an acceptable target, the hyperbole about it in this case is totally false. The worst racist organization we have had in recent times was the KKK, which has all but disappeared. There is a racist/fascist undercurrent in the Tea Party, but even they try to not be openly racist. Meanwhile, I know for a fact both Germany and Britain have large, vocal, and growing racist subcultures, which have committed violence. So while I can't speak for all countries, I do know the US is not the worst of them. It also stands as perfect proof that banning something doesn't make it go away.
Great Intellect...
There's no such thing as an upper 5th percentile, so "bottom" is redundant.
Secondly, percentiles apply to variables or measurements, not the objects being measured. You didn't name the variable. Intelligence, income, weight, pizza consumption, knowledge of statistics...?
Thirdly, [citation needed]
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
sigh... No. You have the right to free speech and opinions YOU create/express on your own, or in collaboration with others who are equally willing to see it's expression or distribution in the form you use. A right to free speech does not allow you to violate someone else's right to privacy.
Some things have to be kept secret, for a limited time at least. The most obvious example is exam scripts. Free speech does not give you the right to release the exam questions before the exam can be written. And preventing the distribution of the exam questions outside of official channels is NOT censorship. It may technically fall under the definition of censorship, but the material is not being censored in a political or moral sense.
The Nine west handbags of individuals can be decided only by those who live after them, not by their Designer handbags." Can the Wholesale bags of individuals be decided only by those who live after them, not by their wedding dresses 2011, as the speaker contends? In my point of view, this assertion is too absolute.
sumThe speaker asserts that human mind will always be superior to simple wedding dresses machines, based on the reason that Beach wedding dresses machines are only tools of human minds. I agree with the latter part that cocktail dresses machines are controlled under human beings, however, I can hardly agree to the former part, because in many conditions, long beach wedding dresses machines indeed hold a capacity far beyond human beings so as to bring fabulous benefits to the society. In the first place,
I cannot accept the division. Moreover, the author also indicates that we should obey just cheap prom dresses and disobey unjust vintage prom dresses, which I cannot agree with either.prom dresses 2011, as far as I know, are consequences of balance among different groups of people. That is to say, each law benefits some people and inevitably goes against other people. For example, a law of forbidding smoking in public places does good to non-smokers,
Aren't you cute troll. He nowhere stated that "financing production of child pornography and profiting from it" is fine.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".