HaloMods "Classic" Read-only Archive

Alright, so most of us know that China has been taking steps toward keeping their internet 'clean' of what they consider inappropriate content. Other countries are taking similar steps toward their situations.

Australia is testing a nationwide filtering system, and other countries block random sites.

What's your opinion about it, and where do you think this trend is going?

I'm personally hoping that the US doesn't follow.

CNN Source

That article exaggerates a little, the UK have never completely blocked Wikipedia. They just blocked an indecent image of a minor posing nude, which in my opinion is fair enough.

I don't think the U.S. and U.K. has much to worry about, I honestly doubt our Internet will ever be censored in that way.

I'd say Scotty's got something to worry about though, I can imagine the Australian government doing something like this.

Depends on what their plans are. so far all I've heard is that they want to stop adult content from reaching kids. Sure when they have the power to block that, they can block more...But please post something if you find something on the issue.

I doubt they'll censor anything I do though.

Freedom of press should keep us safe.

Ragdoll wrote:Freedom of press should keep us safe.

Freedom of press obviously doesn't apply to pornography being distributed to minors, threats to national security, etc. Typical things that would be filtered. It's not like the government would ever block sites just because they can, and the sort of mindset that they would is quite dumb.

Last I checked the aussie filter was horrible and has been lampooned by most experts. A simple proxy gets around it. I also heard that due to it's total ineffectiveness and some negative attention it may be scrapped.

Also:

John Gilmore wrote:The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

I think it would be BS if they did that here in the US. Who are they to decide what's inappropriate for us to see? As long as it's not breaking any current laws they should leave us alone.

Edit - I understand they want to keep adult sites away from children but parents should monitor what their children do on the computer if they care so much what their kids see on the web.

I'm more worried about corporations being able to control my internet than I am about the government.
Case-by-case incidents that the government filters (such as what Geo talks about with Wikipedia) are acceptable by me, but broader filtering is where I'm more concerned, but I doubt it would come to that.

What khas said.

Xero wrote:I think it would be BS if they did that here in the US. Who are they to decide what's inappropriate for us to see? As long as it's not breaking any current laws they should leave us alone.

Edit - I understand they want to keep adult sites away from children but parents should monitor what their children do on the computer if they care so much what their kids see on the web.

It's often about filtering illegal content, not just inappropriate stuff. E.g. child pornography. Which is a good decision, I think.

Honestly, if the big worry is pornography reaching minors, governments should increase awareness among parents, and implement more accessible parental control software in browsers. The government should never, ever block access to any websites unless it hosts something terrible like child pornography, in which case the website's owner is committing a felony that merits jail time. Governments that pour money into finding and researching questionable material should try to advise the websites which act as the main gateways for them (Google, Yahoo, or whatever), so that they can filter it from the results.
I'm pretty sure Google already does this to some degree.

Again, I only mean this for things like child pornography, and other things of the same vein. Also, anything that could be a source for news-- independent or otherwise --should never be censored by the government. I'm referring to videos taken by murderers or terrorists or what have you, which are sometimes removed because they are evidence.

Anything that is a threat to the security and safety of citizens should be subject to regulation. If you publish news that endangers troops or citizens, that news should be subject to removal. For you to claim that news should never be censored is an incredibly irresponsible assertion. If you publish news from a murderer, or from terrorists, and they find out the authorities have this information, and they change what they're doing, you're potentially putting more people at risk by letting the wrongdoers know that people are on to them. If you're hindering the abilities of authorities and the government, willingly, you need a reality check, because that is a fucked up thing to do.

Let's say we know where Bin Laden is right now. Let's say there is an operation taking place to apprehend him. Now, that plan gets leaked. A news organization comes up with it, and decides they want to break the unbelievable news of the operation to catch the most wanted terrorist in the world, and they publish it before it happens. Now he knows the operation is taking place, he has time to flee. This has happened in the past, to a lesser extent, where news organizations have listened to police radio scanners and whatnot and published information that hurts an ongoing manhunt. You're saying there should be no ability to stop these people from getting away, by stopping the publication of it? You'd rather let a terrorist or murderer get away, become bitter at the attempt, and go on to kill more people, than censor a news organization? Please tell me that is not what you mean by that comment.

I think we should also post on the Internet when and where the President and our Prime Minister are having surprise visits to Iraq or Afghanistan.

/Sarcasm

Yodel wrote:The government should never, ever block access to any websites unless it hosts something terrible like child pornography, in which case the website's owner is committing a felony that merits jail time.

What if the owner lives in a country that won't prosecute him for it? Then the only real option is to block access.

Hence "unless".

Tural wrote:His Post

You are completely correct. If it can harm innocent people, it should be censored, at least until such a time when it is safe to release it.

Tural, you'd love my Theory of Knowledge class, where we sometimes go into class-long discussions on ethics, morals, etc.

That point goes with my idea of a case to case basis. Obviously, now with the speed of technology, we can't say that the government would have to go through some process to formally remove the information beforehand...obviously keep a record of everything that gets blocked by the government, and after the fact (Using the Osama example, after the attack took place) it gets evaluated to check if it was a justified censorship, and the information is restored.

If that makes any sense. I can't really formulate exactly what I'm trying to say, but I think you get the basic idea.

I read this thread's name as "Internet Flirting"

anyways: if the US ever did this, people would be freaking up in arms over it.

Nothing should ever be censored...It's entirely up to the site hosting the material whether it should be permitted or not, not the government or governing bodies...

Just because you believe something to be indecent, or immoral, what gives you the right to force that view on others?..Just because you and 90% of people believe something to be indecent, or immoral, what gives you the right to force that view on the other 10% of the population?..

Look back 50 years, 100 years, even 1000 years...What back then was considered to be indecent and immoral?..Things we take for granted now and think they were silly about back then...Who's to say 100 years from now people won't look back on us, and think things we want banned were silly?..

No one has the right to say what is right or wrong except yourself...If you begin extending your reach for laws and censorship beyond the protection of basic human rights, you lead down a road where change is illegal...And change has brought us to the life we cherish today...Are you claiming this is as good as it gets, and we should begin enforcing the majorities views on others to prevent their views from ever growing in numbers?..

Iron_Forge wrote:If you begin extending your reach for laws and censorship beyond the protection of basic human rights, you lead down a road where change is illegal...

Life being a right, yes? Would you agree with my above comments about censorship to protect citizens, soldiers, etc? Surely if you can save lives, you should.