Slashdot Mirror
The Shortest Internet Censorship Debate Ever
rysiek writes "When a politician starts talking about defending the innocence of children, there's bound to be a great policy initiative ahead. That's how British PM David Cameron introduced the British porn block. That's also how the Polish Minister of Justice started his remarks yesterday morning on how good an idea it is and that it should be introduced in Poland. This started the shortest Internet censorship debate ever, as in the evening of the same day the Polish Prime Minister and the Minister of Administration and Digitization denounced any such ideas: 'We shall not block access to legal content regardless of whether or not it appeases us aesthetically or ethically.'
There had been several full-blown Internet censorship debates in Poland during the last four years. Apparently the arguments against it were not lost on at least some of Polish politicians."
Hurrah for Po(rn)land!
Lest someone not chase the links down, there's a useful 'HOWTO: EFFECTIVELY ARGUE AGAINST INTERNET CENSORSHIP IDEAS linked-to in the TFL at http://rys.io/en/94 "You forgot Poland" just might take on a new meaning.
And so do I. I used to listen to polish punk that had all the words bleeped out. Sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better...
Common sense is not fully eradicated there yet. Plus they really remember what censorship really is http://www.examiner.com/article/polish-parliament-members-wear-anonymous-guy-fawkes-masks-opposition-to-acta
MY children would not take money to deinstall the censorship. they would ask for a cashier's check.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
... "We'll just make the content we don't like illegal"?
The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we?
Nope.
Why exactly should we want any censorship?
Only cowards use censorship
I've invented the best, most effective and cost effective internet content filter ever devised. Concerned as any parent is about what my son could be doing on the internet I set about thinking of a system where I could prevent him from getting interested in Midget porn or gaining the skills to build a meth lab in my basement. After many weeks of planning and development I finally implemented my system and it has worked flawlessly ever since. How does my flawless system work? I placed the computer in the living room and then faced the monitor towards the open room. Amazingly, he seems reluctant to go to sites that I'd disapprove of now. It's great what actual parenting can do...
I'd rather have the maker of the picture/video prosecuted. The damage is already done and I'm not buying into any "market dynamics" that claim the demand for CP is the cause for the production of it.
Your demands actually tell a lot about you. You don't trust other people to think for themselves and you rather cover up crimes than prosecute. And when the censorship exists, the likes of you will certainly block more to cover up their own fuckups. ANYONE demanding censorship has in the back of his head the demand to cover up faults of his own.
Go fuck yourself, Mr. Wannabe Dictator.
If such filters were very accurate, it would be great.
Only if it was opt-in of course.
Filter all articles and sites related to [Microsoft|Linux|Apple]
Filter content of [repidlicans|democrats], [gristians|atheists|muslims|Buddhists|other].
Internet would entirely consist of unicorns and kittens!
Privacy is terrorism.
I'm afraid that all ideas do _not_ deserve equal review or attention, when the issues are so clear. Such censorship is expensive, ineffective for its most vaunted goals, and immediately prone to _enormous_ abuse to track or censor political and social speech. Wasting time in the middle debating subtleties lends legitimacy to very dangerous practices, such as deep packet inspection used to monitor speech and writing wholesale and aggregating the data into very dangerous histories on individuals and groups.
Nobody is forcing you to look at child porn or so called hate speech - If something offends you, you are free to avoid or ignore it. But forcing everyone else to follow your standards is strictly undemocratic.
Are you really trying to argue some anti-corporate spin into the same sentence with pro-censorship? My head is spinning.
They haven't worked on a filtering solution because that would be ILLEGAL and IMMORAL, you stupid fuck.
implying that 'it's so absurd we shouldn't be discussing it'.
Sounds good to me.
The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we?
No.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Internet companies had years to get their acts together and offer a workable filtering solutions for the masses.
There already exist solutions for this type of garbage, even if they're not offered by ISPs. And really, none of this censorship nonsense is even necessary.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
I want to make a commercial about censorship and it sould go like this: There is a debate between two people arguing about censorship. The first is arguing for censorship about saving children blah blah. When its time for the detractor, he says one word and gets his mic cable audibly removed. You see him talking, but no words. Thin in a large caption "It will Happen" across the screen before a fade out. Done.
Bye!
Did you stop reading after that exact sentence?
The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we?
No.
I want child-porn blocked. For everyone.
And you don't care what else gets blocked along with it. And you're also a hypocrite, because you said "This discussion should be had extensively and without prejudice. Without sentiments like 'will someone pleeease think of the children'.
I want sites blocked telling people actively to be violent. The whole thing is, what are exactly the limits there, how do we establish those boundaries? And enforce them?
Well, you could ban such sites, and then you'd drive your Neo-Nazis underground like Germany has. Then you can pretend you've stamped them out, like they do. Or, you know, you could let people say crazy shit on the internet so that it's easy to find the crazy people.
Outright dismissing any sort of censorship is naive.
Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
We need to Polish our laws.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
How on earth is it an ISPs responsibility or even prerogative to decide what content to deliver and which one not to?
How the fuck do you dare to push the responsibility for your children on someone else? Did the nanny state reach that level already that people feel entitled to someone else taking care of their responsibilities?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
And you don't care what else gets blocked along with it
Terrified actually.
and then you'd drive your Neo-Nazis underground like Germany has
Valid point.
Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.
I'm just not sure. But at least we're discussing it.
OK, so you're just the usual well-meaning, emotionally-involved, naive idiot who doesn't see the consequences of global censorship. Just as bad.
I'm afraid that all ideas do _not_ deserve equal review or attention,
Probably true, although that argument has been misused in the past to dismiss the other's point of view from that start.
...when the issues are so clear. Such censorship is expensive, ineffective for its most vaunted goals, and immediately prone to _enormous_ abuse to track or censor political and social speech. Wasting time in the middle debating subtleties lends legitimacy to very dangerous practices, such as deep packet inspection used to monitor speech and writing wholesale and aggregating the data into very dangerous histories on individuals and groups.
What time is wasted having that discussion? I agree with you that the extremity is a terrible thought, but you're suggesting that _any_ filtering immediately equals the thought police. Are you sure there isn't a grey area?
And your reply doesn't present a single refutation of an argument. First you appeal to yourself as an authority given by your "good standing" as a parent and profession, then you appeal to the tone of the retort and not the message.
The internet can be a wild west, as it already is. Viewing any exchange of information as an illegal activity sets a dangerous precedent, one that isn't worth the potential benefits of "protecting" children or "society" it might offer. The problem you mention is indeed a challenging one, because censorship often falls into a binary category as mission creep will inevitably rear its head. The UK already blocks more than just child porn with its "just for child porn, honest!" cleanfeed system.
Congratulations on your soon-to-be new arrival.
Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.
I'm just not sure. But at least we're discussing it.
I'm tired of discussing it. All of what I've said above has been said to fucking death, and all of what you've said, too. Unless you have something novel to say, there is no value whatsoever in having the discussion.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Any Polish neo-nazi should be charged with treason.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Right now the internet is often a unregulated wild west
Just like the air. Imagine that: When two people meet and talk stuff, the air faithfully conveys acoustic signals between them! Completely regardless of the contents! If one of them says "let's kill my neighbor", the air does nothing! Surely this situation can't be tolerated anymore?
Ezekiel 23:20
I'll offer a devil's advocate counter-point. What you see here is a discussion nobody could have quietly in a room in real life. The internet's lack of regulation means people don't need to skirt around common courtesy when they disagree, and those offering retorts are free to reply in any way they wish. Unfortunately in this case there's little productive argument going on, but consider the recent furore over Linus' rants on LKML - they can have utility and might even be healthier than standard social norms of being careful to avoid treading on toes too much.
If this discourse isn't acceptable to you then you are of course free to complain as you are doing. Alternatives might be to look towards having discussions on forums where pseudonyms aren't used, or at least anonymity is not preserved if people want it.
And your reply doesn't present a single refutation of an argument. First you appeal to yourself as an authority given by your "good standing" as a parent and profession, then you appeal to the tone of the retort and not the message.
I did that more because I was (indirectly) accused, It wasn't a reply on his content. And yes I appealed to the tone, for me it's pretty much a basis for any normal talk.
The UK already blocks more than just child porn with its "just for child porn, honest!" cleanfeed system.
I'm terrified actually, for this over-use/misuse.
Congratulations on your soon-to-be new arrival.
Thank you very much indeed. It's a girl, another one to worry about. :)
What has the IT industry mainly been doing to address this real problem?
Problem? What problem? The problem of a communication network working as desiged?
All the major search engines are guilty with this regard.
Guilty of what? Are you saying that the major search engines are hiding these results from the police? And if not, the police can simply lift their fat lazy asses and act on the things that everybody else sees.
Ezekiel 23:20
Anonymity is _absolutely_ fine by me. I am by no means interested in anyone's true identity here. Is it too much too ask for some common courtesy however, even when you don't have to give any.
Unless you have something novel to say
Little chance of that, I must admit. Still, maybe the whole UK thing added something new to the table. Apparently, if we don't present alternatives beyond "Not gonna happen", it's going to happen anyway.
Why do ideas scare you
Of course they don't. How did you figure?
If you don't think society in general can be trusted with information
I am not worried about most people. Most people never need worry. Luckily.
It's gone already, I request courtesy, but don't require it. I have a strong feeling however to be polite to anyone, even in disagreement, even in anonymity. I generally distrust someone (mildly) who doesn't share that 'nerve' somewhere.
I'm an active web developer and proponent of liberties for all.
Then why don't you use an ISP that offers filtering and ask them to turn it on for you?
That way everyone gets their liberties and you get your filtered Internet. Why should an entire nation be bound to your desires simply because you can't be bothered to switch ISP?
Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.
I'm just not sure. But at least we're discussing it.
I'm tired of discussing it.
Then don't.
All of what I've said above has been said to fucking death, and all of what you've said, too.
New people are born all the time. Not everyone was around for the discussions you are so sick of. The fact that you are burnt out shouldn't stifle debate among those that want it.
Unless you have something novel to say, there is no value whatsoever in having the discussion.
Every interesting debate I know of is at least thousands of years old. Nothing you have ever thought has been novel. Get over yourself.
Why should anybody read past it? Censorship is obscene, in all cases. There is nothing to debate. Nobody has a right to control what I see and hear. That is up to me and me alone. Too simple..
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Okay, I'll play ball. Different AC.
This should be an indicator that you are proposing something that steps on the rights of others, yes. Regretfully their reaction tends to be the standard rules of engagement these days; don't stand up for the rights of others except when they are rights you appreciate, and then overreact in ways that don't inspire common dialogue. End result: steady decline of rights for everyone, because most of us are happy to allow rights we don't personally exercise to be tread upon if it's accompanied by the right special interest poison pill.
I have two adorable nieces. Their father was part of a security detail in rehabilitating a pedophile. But I'm also a technology guy. No amount of love for those girls changes the fact that holistically censoring child porn is a pipe dream. If you need an example of the type of infrastructure and policies needed to support this model, please take a good look at what China is doing, and the other social problems that accompany that kind of infrastructure. (this is not a smoke screen for the bad crap we do that China doesn't)
At the end of the day, it's a variant of AB fallacy. "x is bad. (law/policy) y helps stops x. Therefore y is good." Doesn't factor in what we're sacrificing for y and whether that is good, and is often accompanied by two collieries: "people who disagree with y are bad" or "people who disagree with y support x".
I think you're an overprotective parent
I'm not overprotective. At least not by my standards (so it's subjective, but then again, what isn't). My kids are outside right now, semi-attended. Me and the misses mostly listen for noises we don't trust. I think that's sort of what any parent does.
Also, no offense meant, but your type of people disgust me because you preach a care for children but would do all you can to stifle their growth in to mature, educated and responsible adults.
You seem to be disgusted over a premature conclusion. Also, try not to be disgusted by anyone you exchanged only a few lines of text with. Regardless of what they say, really. It stifles your personal growth and prevents you from meeting interesting people.
I am. And without wiggle room in your argument, I think I'll indeed settle for idiot.
Very insightful. So far, the debate has been enriching for me that I actually truly regret proposing that child porn should be blocked for everyone. It might actually be a bad idea. But, for the life of me, I can't put my finger on why exactly.
Besides not being 100% reliable I don't think the government should be filtering any media (books, Internet, radio, TV). I don't want an elected body to force their morals on me and my family. Every household should be able to enforce their own standards. I would have no problem if the government forced the ISPs to provide a filter that people could opt in to which allowed them to customize exactly the content that was prevented from being shown. It would have to be completely open and transparent. So if someone clicked on the option to prevent sexually explicit material then they would be able to see a list of sites that would be forbidden and a list of keywords that would cause pages from downloading. Maybe even going so far as to allowing each household (user?) to white list sites and keywords.
That being said I do believe that some material should not be available but I think the best way to stop it is have people report it to the police when it is found. Then have the authorities target the creators and distributors of such content.
The danger to free speech is too great by placing filters in place.
The world is a dangerous place. You must protect your own children from those dangers while preparing them to deal with them as they attain independence. Don't expect us to do your parenting for you.
Have gnu, will travel.
(which is what some of the others have tried expressing, just less politely)
'have tried' is crucial here. Because I noticed it, but just won't pick up on that if both the eloquence and intention is lacking. There has to be a minimum to work with.
That may be a solution for me. I'm seriously considering OpenDNS. But the original point was that I was hoping that blocking the child pornography would affect the demand. Or maybe even nullify the supply. But I am very much aware this has huge disadvantages.
I want sites blocked telling people actively to be violent.
Does that include *.mod.uk? How about anywhere which allows user comments, including slashdot?
Depends where you are in the world - in the UK child porn is already blocked, for instance.
The Netherlands here. I doubt it'll happen here. Although the UK thing keeps the discussion very much alive.
You're right. The childporn-issue is easier to discuss, because the urgency is clear. The violence is much, much harder. I was referring to sites that instruct to kill a specific person or group. But it's undoable, and more than that, undefinable.
So you are basically telling that the USA has laws that prohibit the broadcast of music or other media that are legal to buy, sell or play otherwise? How curiously unconstitutional, if you put it that way.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
I have never seen any kind of child porn whatsoever, through any medium, in my entire life.
I haven't either, I must admit. And that includes while browsing for regular porn. And no, we're not discussing the term 'regular', if you don't mind. So good point.
Nevermind actually taking a moment to discuss it seriously.
Like someone else mentioned here. New people are born every generation, and that makes the most interesting and important discussions a thousand years old. And almost infinitely renewable.
At the end of the day, it's a variant of AB fallacy. "x is bad. (law/policy) y helps stops x. Therefore y is good." Doesn't factor in what we're sacrificing for y and whether that is good, and is often accompanied by two collieries: "people who disagree with y are bad" or "people who disagree with y support x".
It also tends to ignore how effective y would be at stopping x. The people advocating y may want it for entirely different reasons. Politics typically dosn't follow any logic,
Is there something which could do the job far better than y? But is politically incorrect, including for such trivial reasons as the "wrong" people came up with it.
That's before even considering if x actually is bad, even what x actually is. The current "debate" in the UK can't appear to make up it's mind if it is about "children" viewing "porn" or "child porn".
Finally there's the issue of even if y actually does "stop" x (without much "collateral damage") what are the "unintended consequences" and what if they are far worst than x?
How would that work? Remove commercialization.
I think his point was that once the technology is in place, it can and will be used to censor free speech.
If the country where the child porn originates is a country where the law, the enforcement of the law or the law enforcement agencies are such that prosecution of the scumbags who create this filth isn't going to happen (e.g. Russia where the criminals responsible for child porn, cybercrime, spam, phishing scams etc etc are part of criminal gangs who have ties all the way to Putin himself) then we here in the west should be using political, diplomatic, trade and other pressure to get things changed.
Laws are already in place to cover valid threats. There was an article on Slashdot a week or two back talking about a foolish kid getting arrested under one of these laws. There's no need for censorship.
If that is a given, an absolute irrefutable fact, then there is indeed nothing we can do but never allow any censorship.
You don't trust other people to think for themselves
Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of this subject, that phrase caught my eye. No, I don't trust other people to think for themselves.
Buddy, child prn existed way way before the internet and even if somehow you manage to eradicate it entirely from the internet, child prn will continue to exist in the world.
No doubt it did exist, but I never saw any CP, even though I browsed porn mag shops on a few occasions, and I would not have known where to begin to find it if I'd wanted it. OTOH, I am sure I could soon find it on the Web today if I wanted, and in fact I have seen side-adverts on other sites that look suspiciously like links to CP.
As for "continuing to exist", most crimes continue to exist despite laws against them, but laws reduce their occurence. Eg theft levels would be >1000 times higher if it were not for it being illegal. You think all laws should be abandoned because crimes continue to exist? You would have loved living in the Dark Ages.
If you REALLY want to filter YOUR computers internet connection there is a very simple and totally effective approach.
A white list.
Blocking content you don't like on the internet is a never ending task but you CAN produce a SHORT list of approved sites for you or those who can't yet escape your clutches to visit. Because I have found that those kids who grew up in censored households were the ones to go most off the rails when they finally moved out. No greater slut then the preachers daughter.
I am reminded of stories of kids being banned from watching Star Trek because it had a black woman on it. These kinds of people are the ones who want filters and how the fuck are you going to filter everything that upsets them. Only white list disney.com? Doesn't disney have gay days in its park? BAN!
There ARE no safe sites that please EVERYONE. Hell even something as simple as searching for a picture of a new monitor stand from newstar with safesearch ON on googles image search... do NOT do this if you are worried about what might appear on your screen. http://www.newstar.nl/home/ products is what I was after, their search catalog sucks so I hoped to use image search to find a triple monitor stand. That is not what I found.
So what site can you allow? You can't censor the net effectively, you could only create a white listed version and then the list would be a handful of sites. weather.com and kittenwars... oh you are a dog lover.
But I did say there is a real effective filter didn't I?
There is. UNPLUG your computer. If you can't handle the internet, maybe you shouldn't be on it. And now if you excuse me, I will await a knock on the door for my google search of today.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I have children, and IMNSHO David Cameron is a technologically challenged idiot.
:)
Personally I'd have a hard time naming an MP (or wannabe MP) who could be called anything else
But the original point was that I was hoping that blocking the child pornography would affect the demand. Or maybe even nullify the supply.
That's exactly the problem with your 'solution'. It's based on hope, not rational argument or observation. There is no reason to think that blocking CP will affect the demand. On the other hand, there is every reason to think that blocking CP (or anything) will push the material to an obscure corner of the net without any social or judicial oversight. Pedophiles don't rely on google image search to find their fix.
You approve of the IDEA of censorship. What you forget is that there has to be someone in charge of it. And once you put someone in charge, they get to use their discretion. In practice, also known as gritty real life, mission creep sets in, definitions get changed, or politicians deem something to have (or not have) happened.
New people are born all the time. Not everyone was around for the discussions you are so sick of.
They could literally read old slashdot threads and find the same arguments. Let's tell a new story.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The Internet *is* an unregulated wild west. Nobody "owns" it or has total jurisdiction over everything that happens on it. No matter how much you agree with censorship, it's really not feasible from either a practical, technical, or economic sense.
Plus, no matter what censorship is in play, your kids will find things they're interested in, and will be exposed to all manner things from their schoolmates well beyond your control.
> What time is wasted having that discussion?
The time that could be spent digging into the already existing problems, such as the already present censorship and monitoring done without notification by security agencies, businesses monitoring and censoring their own employees' private lives, and the encroachment of "big data" into personal lives. Spending excess time on ideas that have already been demonstrated as impractical, expensive, and certain to be abused for other purposes lends them credence.
That's correct. Treat the speech itself as a criminal act if necessary (such as a call to violence or a physical threat, or a lie.) But don't censor the content carriers or the book printer. Try or censure the author of the content.
I want sites blocked telling people actively to be violent.
But no-one likes a passive aggressive!
It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
I know this seems off topic, but bear with me....This morning I listened to an NPR article on the Zimmerman case. The focus was why all the support groups that seemed connected before the verdict have now splintered. The general feeling was "We need to do something about race and civil rights", and my questions to the radio was "what? Pass another law?" There are times when we, as a Society, need to step back from the emotional response and look at the bigger picture of cause and effect.
Trying to propose a block or censorship of anything means, at a basic level, you begin to infringe of the rights (or desires) of others. Freedom is messy, because it requires a greater personal and societal responsibility. it means that you have to educate your daughters on what's messy in life (which you may do) and that you cannot always protect in the moment, but you can give them the tools to handle what life puts in front of them, Freedom means we may not always like what others do, but we have the ability to choose a good path.
There is nothing good in censorship other then if it harms the society as a whole and even them that is murky thinking.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Because that's what you and I would be doing if we didn't have this chat right here? The grand parent made clear that HIS time could be spent better, and that HE was bored with the discussion. Not that of society as a whole which you imply. We were talking about how this discussion right here, right now would be wasted time. Which I really think it isn't.
The discomfort also likely lies in a base emotional desire that is, by definition, beyond reason. People, like cablepokerface, that argue for X at the expense of Y because X is so very bad nothing else can matter are doing so often based on feelings.
And we are human so it should come as no surprise that that is a factor. And it is not a bad thing. However when X is indeed bad but there are very good reasons why we can't solve X without damaging Y (Or other things.) and reason has left the building we tend to end up with bad solutions. (As detailed in this thread which I feel is pretty well resolved.)
I will finish by saying one last thing about such a discussion. It often can start with people being discussing a topic with a nominal amount of humanity still in tact, aka emotions/feelings. But often the group that wants to do X feels that they be losing the rational discussion and do not like that, again because they have those feelings about wanting to do X, they will reflexively throw out that feelings based argument. In this case cablepokerface at one point used the "What about the children, my children!" Why? Because it can and does work.
But beyond they why is what happens next. cablepokerface just introduced a non-rational argument into a rational discussion and then, and this is key, got offended when he was met with some people getting hostile (emotions again) in the discussion. Allowing him to then not only have introduced a new non-rational argument that must be at the very least maneuvered around but then got to play the victim by saying, "Hey hey, let's keep it civil!"
Now I could be off about the details on this particular debate but what I'm saying is a very real thing. For whatever reason it is much more allowed for people to introduce non-rational, to the point of them being non-nonsensical, point after point into a debate and it is expected that the reaction is to be calm in facing them. If the person on the other side of the debate has the temerity to become emotional in response they then are the person who has done wrong and then the person who pushed for X, even in non-rational ways, now has their non-rational arguments still on the table but is the victim as well in their cards.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Is it me, or won't censorship grow?? They are already arresting peaceful protesters. Won't this extent to the Web, or am I ignorant?
Warnings on some types of sites are nice, hopefully volunteerly perhaps with a some social pressure.
Most porn sites seem to have a front page that states that there is porn here, enter at your own risk.
Even the radio (CBC) will often preface certain stories with a warning about disturbing content.
Makes it easier to make an informed choice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Child porn is a problem, so lets block all porn.
Meth is a problem, so lets put Pseudoephedrine behind the counter.
Irresponsible people with pit bulls are a problem, so lets ban all "dangerous" breeds.
Evil people killing others with guns is a problem, so lets ban all guns.
Over-consumption of energy drinks is a problem, so lets ban energy drinks.
none of the above "solutions" actually solves the problem, it just infringes on the rights of the people.
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
My understanding is that your point is that a little courtesy helps let the ideas flow into your mind instead of being blocked by an emotional reaction to the fucking assholery that normally takes place in these so-called discussions. I generally agree with this, as this human tendency to react more positively when treated with courtesy is exactly what caused it to become the norm in the first place. It should come as no surprise when, in the course of an intellectual discussion, someone requests that all participants stop acting like assholes.
That said, the blocking of an idea, no matter how vile the idea is, should not be a matter of government control. Once those in power can block an idea that threatens them, what's to stop them from blocking others? What if Americans were suddenly unable to obtain information about products made in China? Unable to purchase them? What effect would that have on the global economy? Some might like to find out, but the truth is that such a drastic change would likely temporarily devastate the US economy, which has been shown to have worldwide effects. If US manufacturers want to sell more products domestically, they just have to find another way to make their products more attractive to US consumers. What if the President suddenly appeared to be running for another term unopposed because no one could find any information about the existence of such opposition? Where does it stop?
I actually truly regret proposing that child porn should be blocked for everyone. It might actually be a bad idea. But, for the life of me, I can't put my finger on why exactly.
Whenever you have an urge to ban or restrict something, apply the following line of reasoning.
Freedom is inherently good. Therefore, you should start with a proposition that nothing whatsoever should be banned. It doesn't matter if it's personally extremely disgusting or disturbing to you.
Then assess the actual damage that is caused by the activity in question. Don't trust your gut feel - apply logic. Preferably, look up actual stats, if they exist.
Is it harmful to someone, somewhere? If no, then you should resist the temptation to restrict it. If yes, consider what are the minimum limitations that can be imposed here to eliminate the harm. If such do exist, and are truly small-scale, then go for it.
On the other hand, if the amount of freedom so restricted is considerable (gut feel is fine here, and people will disagree; that's why we have discussions on such things), and especially if it starts stomping on rights of people that were not otherwise involved, stop and try to balance the restrictions with the harm. Again, strive for the absolute minimum intervention/regulation that will reduce the damage to the levels you can tolerate.
I'm not sure if this approach has a name; I'd probably call it "pragmatic libertarianism" (as opposed to the ideological one that deifies freedoms).
At not point, not once, I actually got offended. As I said; I request courtesy, I don't require it.
Thou doth protest too much.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
There are allot of inaccurate statements in what you said.
People, like cablepokerface, that argue for X at the expense of Y because X is so very bad nothing else can matter are doing so often based on feelings
Check my very first post, root level. I explicitly encouraged people to keep emotions out of it. And didn't repeat them after that.
cablepokerface just introduced a non-rational argument into a rational discussion
lol. At almost no point it was a rational discussion, but I worked very hard to try to keep it that. I replied to anyone (including you) to make sure the root level post wasn't troll-intended, but a question if some censorship is needed for certain reasons. Some replies were not entirely content based because people posted non-content related things for me to address.
Now I could be off about the details on this particular debate but what I'm saying is a very real thing. For whatever reason it is much more allowed for people to introduce non-rational, to the point of them being non-nonsensical, point after point into a debate and it is expected that the reaction is to be calm in facing them. If the person on the other side of the debate has the temerity to become emotional in response they then are the person who has done wrong and then the person who pushed for X, even in non-rational ways, now has their non-rational arguments still on the table but is the victim as well in their cards.
Without a doubt true about lots of discussions, but if you think it applied here, you either wanted to show your knowledge on interpersonal engagements (which you without a doubt have), but more likely, you stepped into the discussion too late and didn't read the whole thing.
You're reply is the reason any debate on this subject is impossible, apparently. I'm a father of two (soon to be three), I'm an active web developer and proponent of liberties for all. Right now the internet is often a unregulated wild west with the people enforcing law having too little knowledge or power.
This is your 2nd reply. You pulled the children card early as well as the idea that you are for liberty with one hand while taking away liberty with the other.
I'm not gonna expect a mea culpa from someone like you. You have far too much invested in your argument at this point. However you really are all about turning the argument around. Trying to attack me for showing what you did? No sir, not on my watch.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
You misinterpret that quote, it wasn't at all in the 'think of the children' context. But I am not going to put everything into perspective, because probably if I have trouble translating it to you, other will as well. Maybe it's a language thing. You do realize probably that with the whole 'I'm not expecting an apology from you' statement you rig the discussion just as hard as you accused me of doing don't you? Anyway, it's been good talking to you, honestly. We're strangers which would have never met or spoken a word otherwise. Good luck.
You have far too much invested in your argument at this point
Ow yeah, forgot to mention, check the thread for seeing me drastically changing my mind. I at one point admit that I was convinced by others that even blocking child porn might be a bad idea. Maybe you can at least concur that when you implied I was unable to change my mind in this discussion, it wasn't entirely accurate. This is me:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4022577&cid=44400111
pps. I won't be monitoring this thread anymore. (does slashdot have thread notifications?) Feel free to send me a PM if you posted something new.
Mea culpa is not an apology. An apology is an admission of wrongdoing. Mea culpa is an admission of being wrong.
To expand that, say we are walking both along the street together. And I am feeling like a dick so I trip you and make you fall down. I a) was wrong for hurting you, and b) I purposely did that to you. I would owe you an apology because not only was I wrong for hurting you but I did so knowing full well what would happen by the results of my actions.
To put that yet another way, that is why we have laws that define Manslaughter and Murder II. I have no idea if English is your 1st language or how versed in all its nuances you are but consider this your lesson. Asking for your mea culpa is not the same thing as asking for your apology.
Next, it is incumbent on you when you make your arguments to understand the impact of them. Just as when I use my words it is incumbent on me to make sure that I am understood as clearly as I can be. You pulled out the children card on your 2nd post. Take responsibility for your words.
Next, I did see your post where you "changed your mind". Quite frankly that is why I posted in this thread. I thought you needed all the more pushing. You were so wrong at the start that you needed every argument thrown at you to defeat your "feelings". I wanted to make sure that you, and others, understood what type of people were out there.
Finally, I could care less about PMing you. If you read this great. If not I'm leaving it here for the /. ages. You are the person who has to live with yourself and your 3 kids who views censorship, and who freaking knows what other uber right-wing authoritarian ideology, with. Good luck with all that.
If, however, you can make your way to admitting fault, then we might be able to have more of a discussion. Admitting that you were wrong, full stop, is not as hard as you might think when you accept it. (Hint: Much greater people than you have had to do it.)
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!