The Coming Age of Internet Censorship(wikileaks.org)
wikileaks.org
The Coming Age of Internet Censorship
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/The_coming_age_of_internet_censorship
25 comments
I wonder if in this context we could extend the limitations of "free speech" to include something as abstract as "common sense"... go with me on this.
For instance, smoking tobacco in public places? Now I was under the impression that not a single shred of evidence existed to back up the premise that second hand smoke is dangerous to your health. BUT, I would concede to the arguments that favour "common sense"... of course being in a smokey bar for hours on end is going to have a similar effect to smoking. What I don't agree with, however, is a government that is willing to mandate _laws_ on the premise of "common sense". If you don't want to breath other peoples smoke, don't associate with smokers. If porn offends you, watch something else! If you don't like what fascist say, speak louder than they do!
Haven't even read the OP yet, I just felt compelled to reply. You've hit the nail on the head.
[EDIT: read it! yep - nail, head, hit]
For instance, smoking tobacco in public places? Now I was under the impression that not a single shred of evidence existed to back up the premise that second hand smoke is dangerous to your health. BUT, I would concede to the arguments that favour "common sense"... of course being in a smokey bar for hours on end is going to have a similar effect to smoking. What I don't agree with, however, is a government that is willing to mandate _laws_ on the premise of "common sense". If you don't want to breath other peoples smoke, don't associate with smokers. If porn offends you, watch something else! If you don't like what fascist say, speak louder than they do!
Haven't even read the OP yet, I just felt compelled to reply. You've hit the nail on the head.
[EDIT: read it! yep - nail, head, hit]
>Now I was under the impression that not a single shred of evidence existed to back up the premise that second hand smoke is dangerous to your health.
Just plain wrong. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
Just plain wrong. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
No, you haven't done you're homework. A google search doesn't quite cut it. I haven't read the cited document [1], but I am pretty confident that I remember this document being widely defunct as containing little solid evidence. The clue is in the language that your link uses. Look at question four and then back at question three:
4: Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent)
3: Does secondhand smoke contain harmful chemicals?
Yes. Of the more than 4,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, and 50 of these are known to cause cancer.
This is not _evidence_ that second hand smoking is dangerous to an individuals health. It is evidence that second hand smoke has the _potential_ to be dangerous to ones health as it contains chemicals that we know to be dangerous. It is the leap from that to legislating the behavior of the public, without a thought to stop at private smoking rooms, freedom of expression and the ability to choose not to associate with smokers.
Second hand smoke _probably_ is dangerous to health, but there is no hard evidence, just a line of reasoning that we all kind of agree with. I see that as a slippery slope. It won't be long before a line of reasoning tells us that fatty foods are dangerous to our health, so we are all to be put on rations, for the good of the nation! Then old age and mental stability are going to be a problem, bam, further medication to control our behavior. Our kids are out of control and roaming the streets!! Thank god the government is there to force feed the hoodie wearing little SOBs all kinds of prescription uppers and downers so we know they can have a normal life.
I don't want to troll the conversation into one only about the smoking ban - I was using it as an example of how government have already begun legislating behavior with arguable evidence [2]. Check out some of the laws concerning "extreme porn" for an even worse example of thought police.
[1] The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
[2] http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Science_And_SHS.html
it's an anti-smoking ban site, but they seemed pretty well rounded. Still, as I said, I don't want to hijack the thread.
4: Does exposure to secondhand smoke cause cancer?
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent)
3: Does secondhand smoke contain harmful chemicals?
Yes. Of the more than 4,000 chemicals that have been identified in secondhand tobacco smoke, at least 250 are known to be harmful, and 50 of these are known to cause cancer.
This is not _evidence_ that second hand smoking is dangerous to an individuals health. It is evidence that second hand smoke has the _potential_ to be dangerous to ones health as it contains chemicals that we know to be dangerous. It is the leap from that to legislating the behavior of the public, without a thought to stop at private smoking rooms, freedom of expression and the ability to choose not to associate with smokers.
Second hand smoke _probably_ is dangerous to health, but there is no hard evidence, just a line of reasoning that we all kind of agree with. I see that as a slippery slope. It won't be long before a line of reasoning tells us that fatty foods are dangerous to our health, so we are all to be put on rations, for the good of the nation! Then old age and mental stability are going to be a problem, bam, further medication to control our behavior. Our kids are out of control and roaming the streets!! Thank god the government is there to force feed the hoodie wearing little SOBs all kinds of prescription uppers and downers so we know they can have a normal life.
I don't want to troll the conversation into one only about the smoking ban - I was using it as an example of how government have already begun legislating behavior with arguable evidence [2]. Check out some of the laws concerning "extreme porn" for an even worse example of thought police.
[1] The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Coordinating Center for Health Promotion, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2006.
[2] http://www.nycclash.com/Zion-Skeptic-Science_And_SHS.html
it's an anti-smoking ban site, but they seemed pretty well rounded. Still, as I said, I don't want to hijack the thread.
So, so wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking There is more than enough evidence of its harm.
Conceded
Guess a google search /does/ cut it and I /was/ trying to troll the conversation
thank goodness I didn't make any points worth discussing!
/me is a bitter and sarcastic little troll today
Guess a google search /does/ cut it and I /was/ trying to troll the conversation
thank goodness I didn't make any points worth discussing!
/me is a bitter and sarcastic little troll today
This is about the Internet because the Internet has become the only medium that hasn't been stifled. The recent protests in Iran certainly show how a technical means like twitter, leads to political results.
The point is that the technical evolution of the Internet has so-far paced the growing urge of state to impose censorship. The technical questions and political questions currently are intermingled.
Imagine the present society without the Internet - with something like Al Gore's "Information Superhighway" or France's Minitel system.
The point is that the technical evolution of the Internet has so-far paced the growing urge of state to impose censorship. The technical questions and political questions currently are intermingled.
Imagine the present society without the Internet - with something like Al Gore's "Information Superhighway" or France's Minitel system.
I'm not saying it doesn't involve the Internet I'm just saying it's not about the Internet primarily. The Internet is a form of communication at its core and that makes it susceptible to other laws. That in turn makes this a societal thing. To give an example: I can think of several cases where misguided judges have extended rules that governed print media to also include web sites.
To put it another way, Internet censorship is a symptom but it isn’t the cancer. If you focus on trying to fight that one symptom you’ll eventually be over run because the cancer will continue to grow stronger in the background. Censorship in general is the cancer and that is what we should all be looking to kill here.
To put it another way, Internet censorship is a symptom but it isn’t the cancer. If you focus on trying to fight that one symptom you’ll eventually be over run because the cancer will continue to grow stronger in the background. Censorship in general is the cancer and that is what we should all be looking to kill here.
I think that the Internet sheds an interesting light on the practice of censorship, since for the first time in many people's lifetimes, a new and completely uncensored medium is going through the process of being methodically censored.
People can watch as censorship is put into place; they can see what is being censored and by whom, and they have the benefit of being able to directly compare the censored world to how the world was before/without censorship.
People can watch as censorship is put into place; they can see what is being censored and by whom, and they have the benefit of being able to directly compare the censored world to how the world was before/without censorship.
"But if we in the blogosphere can censor what we don’t like why can’t the Government censor what it doesn’t like?"
Uh, try the first amendment?
Uh, try the first amendment?
But if we in the blogosphere can censor what we don’t like why can’t the Government censor what it doesn’t like?
"Free speech is a principle imposing restrictions at the legislative level in order to create permissive space at the individual level." -Julian Sanchez (over at Ars Technica)
"Free speech is a principle imposing restrictions at the legislative level in order to create permissive space at the individual level." -Julian Sanchez (over at Ars Technica)
Society has always been able to censor its members through culture and pressure to conform, yet this allows one freedom to diverge on say political issues or art form, although this may not be entirely true.
My point is that in the case of Facebook it is the common decency of people which have decided to protest on some action by Facebook. Although these people may have influence and may pressure the Facebook to act as they want it to, the decision still lays with facebook.
Government however has a vast machine which ensures that its laws and policies are obeyed. For this fact alone nothing can be compared with the government and everything should be done to ensure that their hand remains at the absolute minimum because some old bureaucrats do not really know how a twenty year old teenager may achieve the "good life". To the old bureaucrat it may mean marrying a woman, perhaps a white woman, or a Chinese woman. To the old bureaucrat it may mean that prodigy is a bad influence on youngsters, etcetera. In short, it is none of his business and what is his business our society has been deciding since it became a collective and it could not be simpler, if it harms anyone, or anyone's property, then sure regulate their behaviour, otherwise leave society to deal with pressuring into confirmation when it comes to such issues as common human decency to have respect and empathy for the tragedy of an entire people.
My point is that in the case of Facebook it is the common decency of people which have decided to protest on some action by Facebook. Although these people may have influence and may pressure the Facebook to act as they want it to, the decision still lays with facebook.
Government however has a vast machine which ensures that its laws and policies are obeyed. For this fact alone nothing can be compared with the government and everything should be done to ensure that their hand remains at the absolute minimum because some old bureaucrats do not really know how a twenty year old teenager may achieve the "good life". To the old bureaucrat it may mean marrying a woman, perhaps a white woman, or a Chinese woman. To the old bureaucrat it may mean that prodigy is a bad influence on youngsters, etcetera. In short, it is none of his business and what is his business our society has been deciding since it became a collective and it could not be simpler, if it harms anyone, or anyone's property, then sure regulate their behaviour, otherwise leave society to deal with pressuring into confirmation when it comes to such issues as common human decency to have respect and empathy for the tragedy of an entire people.
"My point is that in the case of Facebook it is the common decency of people which have decided to protest on some action by Facebook. Although these people may have influence and may pressure the Facebook to act as they want it to, the decision still lays with facebook."
I'm sorry but this simply isn't true. It's like me holding a gun on you and telling you to do something or I'll shoot. If I then turned around and claim the choice was still yours I'd be lying. Same here. People are threatening Facebook with pain (albeit financial) if they don’t comply.
Also remember that, at its core, Government IS society. What if people voted in representatives that made a law forcing Facebook to squash these groups? That blows your argument completely out of the water because suddenly the government is acting at the people’s behest to censor
Again, this is how good people get on the wrong side of this issue. They think what they dislike is ok to censor while being against what people they disagree with want to censor. But once the policy is set that it’s ok to censor that which you don’t like everyone gets into the game and we have a society without free speech.
P.S. On the "society has always done this" argument you're right but that doesn't mean society was correct in doing it. I don't like communists but I also don't approve of Hollywood coming up with a black list and robbing people of their livelihood for their beliefs. That wasn’t government it was just people and it was wrong. To go back further Socrates was killed in a sham trial for questioning what he felt was the moral decline of his society.
The bottom line is there's no need for censorship. If a school of thought is reprehensible than you should teach your children that and have your friends teach their children that and if society is really against the reprehensible thought it will be discredited. Holocaust denial isn't almost universally discredited because people were censored it's universally discredited because we make a point of presenting the facts to our children in history classes around the country.
I'm sorry but this simply isn't true. It's like me holding a gun on you and telling you to do something or I'll shoot. If I then turned around and claim the choice was still yours I'd be lying. Same here. People are threatening Facebook with pain (albeit financial) if they don’t comply.
Also remember that, at its core, Government IS society. What if people voted in representatives that made a law forcing Facebook to squash these groups? That blows your argument completely out of the water because suddenly the government is acting at the people’s behest to censor
Again, this is how good people get on the wrong side of this issue. They think what they dislike is ok to censor while being against what people they disagree with want to censor. But once the policy is set that it’s ok to censor that which you don’t like everyone gets into the game and we have a society without free speech.
P.S. On the "society has always done this" argument you're right but that doesn't mean society was correct in doing it. I don't like communists but I also don't approve of Hollywood coming up with a black list and robbing people of their livelihood for their beliefs. That wasn’t government it was just people and it was wrong. To go back further Socrates was killed in a sham trial for questioning what he felt was the moral decline of his society.
The bottom line is there's no need for censorship. If a school of thought is reprehensible than you should teach your children that and have your friends teach their children that and if society is really against the reprehensible thought it will be discredited. Holocaust denial isn't almost universally discredited because people were censored it's universally discredited because we make a point of presenting the facts to our children in history classes around the country.
> Also remember that, at its core, Government IS society. What if people voted in representatives that made a law forcing Facebook to squash these groups?
Actually, govt is only the part of society that involves the "legitimate" use of force.
If I won't buy your potatoes, you're free to sell them to someone else. If govt says that you can't sell your potatoes, you're stuck.
> it's universally discredited because we make a point of presenting the facts to our children in history classes around the country.
Because we PAY people to present a certain set of facts. We can, and do, pay people to present non-facts or to ignore certain facts.
> The bottom line is there's no need for censorship.
You don't know much about people.
People need to have other people legitimize their beliefs and to strike down sinners.
That may be wrong, but that's how monkeys roll.
Actually, govt is only the part of society that involves the "legitimate" use of force.
If I won't buy your potatoes, you're free to sell them to someone else. If govt says that you can't sell your potatoes, you're stuck.
> it's universally discredited because we make a point of presenting the facts to our children in history classes around the country.
Because we PAY people to present a certain set of facts. We can, and do, pay people to present non-facts or to ignore certain facts.
> The bottom line is there's no need for censorship.
You don't know much about people.
People need to have other people legitimize their beliefs and to strike down sinners.
That may be wrong, but that's how monkeys roll.
"The bottom line is there's no need for censorship."
You may as well say we do not need laws by the exact same formula: "If a school of thought or action is reprehensible than you should teach your children that and have your friends teach their children that and if society is really against the reprehensible thought or action it will be discredited"
There are some things which are really, really bad, like conspiracy to overthrow the state. This is not an action, this is thoughts, plans, goals. It involves freedom of speech, one should be free to write a treaty on how to overthrow queen and parliament. Yet, in most peoples book, this is the highest crime on the land.
It is quite noble to suggest that we live in a perfect society where bad people do not exist. Speech is a powerful thing that is why it is protected by your constitution. Its power however is not necessarily always used for good.
The example of Socrates that you used is a good example to illustrate my point, it is the government using censorship to guard its own power, it is the old bureaucrats telling the teenagers what the good life is. As I said I am a libertarian, I do not believe the government should go an inch further than protect us and our property from other people.
I do not think that I could go so far and say that a group of people can not protest however - I do not quite know the facebook issue. If the media suggests that something should be banned, say the burka, because it is used to enslave women, because it keeps our society divided, etcetera, I think they have the right to so shape the opinion of the people so as to regard the burka as socially unacceptable.
I think I have entered a complex line of thought, mostly because I am speaking of generalities when such issues are particularities. I may conclude with saying that parliament has no business to censor due to its heavy hand and leaves no room for manoeuvre, but society does, because this is the best way to protect the rights of those in the minority of certain thinkings as they will be given the option to fight through their speech for whatever issue and if they manage to win society over fine.
I can use two examples to illustrate my point. In the 1960s it was society which began to see homosexuality as acceptable, this change of thinking on societies part was to some extent led by the media. Government soon followed with legalising homosexuality.
Smoking in public places is banned in the UK. The media played some good part in shaping the public's opinion. Now, although smoking is not fully banned, it is a very unsociable act. This is society in action, pressuring its members into conforming. In my opinion parliament can give it a last push and take the smokers out of misery by banning smoking completely. Yet this is protecting individuals from harming themselves and while it may benefit a great many, there will be a minority which such action would take away their liberty. Hence I think it is best to allow society to do what it does best, make it easier for those who smoke to stop doing so by making such behaviour socially unacceptable.
Does society have a right to pressure its members into accepting the holocaust? Of course. Does government have the right to ban the denial of holocaust. Absolutely not. Why? Because history tells us over and over again that some times we are told things which might actually not be true, such as the world is at the centre of the universe, that some god exists. It is of course ridiculous to suggest that the holocaust did not happen and every right minded person, which includes most of our society accepts it. If therefore facebook is propagating some misinformation to suggest that holocoust did not happen, the members of society have every right to protest, influence, pressurise it, etcetera, to conform. But facebook has still the right to continue propagating such misinformation. You see, if a person had some row data to back up such claim, and if they believed enough in their cause, then they would be able to withstand such pressure and continue with propagating whatever they are and at the end of it the world may end up better off. If the government however had legislated that the denial of the holocaust is illegal, this person would be stopped in its tracks before he began. And I think that is the crux of why I believe that government has no business in censoring, but society does.
P.S. I have used the holocaust only as an example, all the above are fictional scenarios used only to illustrate a point and not to imply anything.
You may as well say we do not need laws by the exact same formula: "If a school of thought or action is reprehensible than you should teach your children that and have your friends teach their children that and if society is really against the reprehensible thought or action it will be discredited"
There are some things which are really, really bad, like conspiracy to overthrow the state. This is not an action, this is thoughts, plans, goals. It involves freedom of speech, one should be free to write a treaty on how to overthrow queen and parliament. Yet, in most peoples book, this is the highest crime on the land.
It is quite noble to suggest that we live in a perfect society where bad people do not exist. Speech is a powerful thing that is why it is protected by your constitution. Its power however is not necessarily always used for good.
The example of Socrates that you used is a good example to illustrate my point, it is the government using censorship to guard its own power, it is the old bureaucrats telling the teenagers what the good life is. As I said I am a libertarian, I do not believe the government should go an inch further than protect us and our property from other people.
I do not think that I could go so far and say that a group of people can not protest however - I do not quite know the facebook issue. If the media suggests that something should be banned, say the burka, because it is used to enslave women, because it keeps our society divided, etcetera, I think they have the right to so shape the opinion of the people so as to regard the burka as socially unacceptable.
I think I have entered a complex line of thought, mostly because I am speaking of generalities when such issues are particularities. I may conclude with saying that parliament has no business to censor due to its heavy hand and leaves no room for manoeuvre, but society does, because this is the best way to protect the rights of those in the minority of certain thinkings as they will be given the option to fight through their speech for whatever issue and if they manage to win society over fine.
I can use two examples to illustrate my point. In the 1960s it was society which began to see homosexuality as acceptable, this change of thinking on societies part was to some extent led by the media. Government soon followed with legalising homosexuality.
Smoking in public places is banned in the UK. The media played some good part in shaping the public's opinion. Now, although smoking is not fully banned, it is a very unsociable act. This is society in action, pressuring its members into conforming. In my opinion parliament can give it a last push and take the smokers out of misery by banning smoking completely. Yet this is protecting individuals from harming themselves and while it may benefit a great many, there will be a minority which such action would take away their liberty. Hence I think it is best to allow society to do what it does best, make it easier for those who smoke to stop doing so by making such behaviour socially unacceptable.
Does society have a right to pressure its members into accepting the holocaust? Of course. Does government have the right to ban the denial of holocaust. Absolutely not. Why? Because history tells us over and over again that some times we are told things which might actually not be true, such as the world is at the centre of the universe, that some god exists. It is of course ridiculous to suggest that the holocaust did not happen and every right minded person, which includes most of our society accepts it. If therefore facebook is propagating some misinformation to suggest that holocoust did not happen, the members of society have every right to protest, influence, pressurise it, etcetera, to conform. But facebook has still the right to continue propagating such misinformation. You see, if a person had some row data to back up such claim, and if they believed enough in their cause, then they would be able to withstand such pressure and continue with propagating whatever they are and at the end of it the world may end up better off. If the government however had legislated that the denial of the holocaust is illegal, this person would be stopped in its tracks before he began. And I think that is the crux of why I believe that government has no business in censoring, but society does.
P.S. I have used the holocaust only as an example, all the above are fictional scenarios used only to illustrate a point and not to imply anything.
"Society has always been able to censor its members through culture and pressure to conform"
It's statements like this that I think show how grossly misunderstood this whole debate is. Society? how so? modern society? the global village? Always!? Impossible. There is widespread belief that the human mind is pre-configured to attend to only a certain amount of individuals, and thus anthropologist believe that their was an upper limit on the size of human settlements for much of human evolution. There are still some tribes and groups that behave in such a way that I think shed's light on this issue. There are a group of Amish in USA that form communities no bigger than 124ish individuals (about the limit that psychologists believe we are capable of interacting with and knowing on the level we evolved to commune at). When the community exceeds this threshold, the population split and one group settle another village about a days travel away. I'd be willing to speculate that this type of communal migration is what burst the human population from it's African homelands. Each time a community became to big to handle, whereby I think I mean the potential for dissent crosses a threshold, it was better for the community to split than for this dissent to fester. This type of behavior can also be seen in some of the great apes.
I would argue then, that Society has not ALWAYS had the ability to censor it's citizens, but that the myriad communities of humanity have aggregated into a whole much more massive than can be sustainable with the old paradigm of being able to leave and settle a new community. This is no longer possible, and only seems so through the creation of new mediums to populate with those few dissenting pioneers.
It's statements like this that I think show how grossly misunderstood this whole debate is. Society? how so? modern society? the global village? Always!? Impossible. There is widespread belief that the human mind is pre-configured to attend to only a certain amount of individuals, and thus anthropologist believe that their was an upper limit on the size of human settlements for much of human evolution. There are still some tribes and groups that behave in such a way that I think shed's light on this issue. There are a group of Amish in USA that form communities no bigger than 124ish individuals (about the limit that psychologists believe we are capable of interacting with and knowing on the level we evolved to commune at). When the community exceeds this threshold, the population split and one group settle another village about a days travel away. I'd be willing to speculate that this type of communal migration is what burst the human population from it's African homelands. Each time a community became to big to handle, whereby I think I mean the potential for dissent crosses a threshold, it was better for the community to split than for this dissent to fester. This type of behavior can also be seen in some of the great apes.
I would argue then, that Society has not ALWAYS had the ability to censor it's citizens, but that the myriad communities of humanity have aggregated into a whole much more massive than can be sustainable with the old paradigm of being able to leave and settle a new community. This is no longer possible, and only seems so through the creation of new mediums to populate with those few dissenting pioneers.
In France you can get prison time for telling a friend you don’t like Muslims.
Citation needed.
(in other words: don't repeat this kind of crap. If you think it is ridiculous, then it probably is so ridiculous that it isn't true. Like in this case.)
Citation needed.
(in other words: don't repeat this kind of crap. If you think it is ridiculous, then it probably is so ridiculous that it isn't true. Like in this case.)
Well, I do not know if it is true, but saying you do not like Muslims is no different than saying you do not like Jews or blacks as it is making a generalisation about the entire people and probably used to scapegoat them and stereotype them and we know where that led in the 1940s.
Yeah, so you're a stupid asshole if you say things like that, but that isn't a punishable offense; not even in France.
why am I a stupid asshole if I say I don't like muslims? am I stupid asshole if I say I don't like christians?
Yes. You may not like (the ethics of) Christianity and you may not like any Christian you have ever met, but that still makes it a ridiculous thing to say that you "don't like Christians". It's the kind of sweeping generalization that causes a lot of unnecessary animosity. It's counterproductive, it offends without intention and it a display of a lack of clearness of thought.
I do not like Christians. They are idiots for believing in a fairy tale and I wish they sorted out their minds. None of that is assholish, that is because Christians are a majority in the country; saying whatever against Christians, causes them no harm which leaves society worst off. But in a Christian nation, saying you do not like muslims is dangerous, because that may then lead to a proper discrimination, even a burning of them in chambers, that is why it is not asholish only, but utterly abhorrent.
That is that nazi scenario, however things may get very colourful, I mean it is ok to say you do not like alqeada and sterotype and scapegoat them because well you know they are "bad" people, that is a sweeping generalisation however because many of them may be good people with a real grievance and perhaps a noble idea such as protecting their fellow brothers through whatever mean, still however as it happens their way of doing it is just not right, it is actually abhorent, hence if it means killing them so as to save innocent decent people, then well duno fine i suppose.
But saying you do not like Muslims, especially in the subtle ways the media says it, just divides our society and is not really any different than a Nazi saying he does not like Jews.
That is that nazi scenario, however things may get very colourful, I mean it is ok to say you do not like alqeada and sterotype and scapegoat them because well you know they are "bad" people, that is a sweeping generalisation however because many of them may be good people with a real grievance and perhaps a noble idea such as protecting their fellow brothers through whatever mean, still however as it happens their way of doing it is just not right, it is actually abhorent, hence if it means killing them so as to save innocent decent people, then well duno fine i suppose.
But saying you do not like Muslims, especially in the subtle ways the media says it, just divides our society and is not really any different than a Nazi saying he does not like Jews.
Censorship is rarely about a specific message. It's about people becoming accustomed to the alien idea that a third party MUST be present to intermediate communication between you and anyone else on the grounds of some nebulous externality (think of the children). I felt this was the most important bit of 1984, often glossed over for the more shocking bits. Doublespeak was a way to censor even face to face communication without any enforcement mechanism needing to be in place besides social pressure.
the censorship in Great Britain of the Wikipedia page for Virgin Killer, an album by the German hard rock group, Scorpions.
Some of you might be too young to remember Scorpion. They had a worldwide hit in the late '80s, with a song that went, "I strolled along the Thames, passing by Big Ben, listening to the winds of change." Or something like that.
Some of you might be too young to remember Scorpion. They had a worldwide hit in the late '80s, with a song that went, "I strolled along the Thames, passing by Big Ben, listening to the winds of change." Or something like that.
Uh, the Moskva river and Gorky park.
There’s a battle being fought all over the world right now over what people can and can’t freely say. European and Middle Easter companies are on the censorship side of things. In France you can get prison time for telling a friend you don’t like Muslims.
Now I don’t agree with such prejudice but should we turn the unenlightened into criminals?
That’s the issue and it goes beyond criminalization. Recently we’ve heard a lot about the blogosphere trying to force Facebook to take down holocaust denial sites. But that opens the door because the principle is "we don’t like these people so we have the right to stop them from speaking here"
But if we in the blogosphere can censor what we don’t like why can’t the Government censor what it doesn’t like?
Yes, Facebook is a private company. But it’s a private company that has chosen not to censor these groups. When the public tries to force it to do so you’re setting a precedent that those with power (in this case the public) have the right to force those under their power to censor free speech. Which again begs the question why can’t the ultimate form of power in our modern world (the Government) use that same precedent to censor those under their power (the Citizens)?
So this isn’t about the Internet as much as it’s about a decision that affects the very fabric of society itself. The internet is just part of that society.