Should, in general, a government be aloud to censor the world wide web?
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118 
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
November 29th, 2007, 08:29 AM
I have been doing some extensive reading on just this subject recently. I will probably get around to writing a thorough thread at some point, and boring you all to death... In the meantime, some overviews.
All non-corrupt governments censor certain types of expression. Perjury laws, bans on certain forms of pornography, and conspiracy laws are all examples of censorship. Excluding them from the definition of expression would have a chilling effect on other forms of valid expression, and so they must be dealt with on an individual basis. There are extensive bodies of legislation and jurisprudence on what constitutes reasonable limits on freedom of expression in free and democratic societies. Democratic societies do not have absolute rights, because absolute rights can be used in ways which are not conducive to the principles on which free and democratic societies are based upon.
In that light, non-corrupt governments have a responsibility to censor certain websites, but only in a way that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. So, in general, yes, but a general website, no. Furthermore, independent systems of accountability are necessary as well to demonstrate the justification.
I have been doing some extensive reading on just this subject recently. I will probably get around to writing a thorough thread at some point, and boring you all to death... In the meantime, some overviews.
All non-corrupt governments censor certain types of expression. Perjury laws, bans on certain forms of pornography, and conspiracy laws are all examples of censorship. Excluding them from the definition of expression would have a chilling effect on other forms of valid expression, and so they must be dealt with on an individual basis. There are extensive bodies of legislation and jurisprudence on what constitutes reasonable limits on freedom of expression in free and democratic societies. Democratic societies do not have absolute rights, because absolute rights can be used in ways which are not conducive to the principles on which free and democratic societies are based upon.
In that light, non-corrupt governments have a responsibility to censor certain websites, but only in a way that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. So, in general, yes, but a general website, no. Furthermore, independent systems of accountability are necessary as well to demonstrate the justification.
World Police
Posts: 4,391
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
Videos: 1
Location: toranna
November 29th, 2007, 08:32 AM
Quoting TenPenny
I read about that on slashdot a while ago, they had an interview with a retired AT&T engineer who setup this room for them, allowing the NSA to capture raw data flowing across their fibre network.
Did you happen to see PBS last night, there was a bit on ATT installing a Narus unit, in their San Francisco switching center, in a room only accessible to the NSA and those with NSA clearance, and a splitter so that every single bit of traffic that goes across ATT's network is scanned by the NSA.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 7,938
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
November 29th, 2007, 08:42 AM
I'm not personally worried about it, I encrypt all my stuff in gyberish 2.1 it can't be cracked. I do believe the usual collection of perverts should be harrassed but these days it's very hard to separate the good from the bad. After the war we'll have to act on it.
I'm not personally worried about it, I encrypt all my stuff in gyberish 2.1 it can't be cracked. I do believe the usual collection of perverts should be harrassed but these days it's very hard to separate the good from the bad. After the war we'll have to act on it.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,114
November 29th, 2007, 11:16 AM
Americans (and Canadians to a significant degree) have been conditioned to fear. Whether we regard the current geopolitical maelstrom as yet another cyclic blip on the radar of human evolution or the product of vested interests, fear serves the purposes of those who'd stifle debate and work to divide energy and opinion to selfish ends.
We have a "war on terror" to facilitate fear and as long as the warmongers and greedy can manipulate though this vehicle we will only see more and more of it.....
Quoting Tonington
I'm not certain that the right to promote pornography and "conspiracy theories" is something the average American would regard as protected under the first amendment...
I heard about that somewhere else. NSA has been monitoring and copying a lot of traffic. Has quite a few Americans pissed off, and rightly so. Eroding liberties don't sit well south of the border, as well they shouldn't.
Americans (and Canadians to a significant degree) have been conditioned to fear. Whether we regard the current geopolitical maelstrom as yet another cyclic blip on the radar of human evolution or the product of vested interests, fear serves the purposes of those who'd stifle debate and work to divide energy and opinion to selfish ends.
We have a "war on terror" to facilitate fear and as long as the warmongers and greedy can manipulate though this vehicle we will only see more and more of it.....
November 29th, 2007, 02:55 PM
Quoting MikeyDB
Not by some, certainly by others. Emails are certainly something most Americans and Canadians would resent intrusion upon. Documenting dissenters and the like. Not kosher.
I'm not certain that the right to promote pornography and "conspiracy theories" is something the average American would regard as protected under the first amendment...
Les
Posts: 5,330
Location: on 50 acres in Kootenays BC
Location: on 50 acres in Kootenays BC
December 2nd, 2007, 11:46 PM
Um, "allowed" would be the correct word, but I definitely think censorship is needed. At least SOMEONE should censor a$$holes that toss trojans, spam, phishes, and whatever else around.
Otherwise, leave people to look at, read, and post whatever they want. After all, isn't that why we have filters?
Um, "allowed" would be the correct word, but I definitely think censorship is needed. At least SOMEONE should censor a$$holes that toss trojans, spam, phishes, and whatever else around.
Otherwise, leave people to look at, read, and post whatever they want. After all, isn't that why we have filters?
