BBC News wrote:

Australia intends to introduce filters which will ban access to websites containing criminal content.

The banned sites will be selected by an independent classification body guided by complaints from the public, said Communications Minister Stephen Conroy.

A seven month trial in conjunction with internet service providers found the technology behind the filter to be 100% effective.

However, there has been opposition from some internet users.

Twitter users have been voicing their disapproval by adding the search tag "nocleanfeed" to their comments about the plans.

"Successful technology isn't necessarily successful policy," said Colin Jacobs, a spokesperson for Electronic Frontiers Australia, a non-profit organisation that campaigns for online freedom.

"We're yet to hear a sensible explanation of what this policy is for, who it will help, and why it is worth spending so much taxpayers' money on."

Mr Conroy said the filters included optional extras such as a ban on gambling sites which ISPs could choose to implement in exchange for a grant.

"Through a combination of additional resources for education and awareness, mandatory internet filtering of RC (refused classification)-rated content, and optional ISP-level filtering, we have a package that balances safety for families and the benefits of the digital revolution," he said.

The filter laws will be introduced in parliament in August 2010 and will take a year to implement.

'noble aims'

"Historical attempts to put filters in place have been effective up to a point," Dr Windsor Holden, principal analyst at Juniper Research, told BBC News.

The "noble aims" of the filter could be lost in its implementation, he warned.

"Clearly there is a need to protect younger and more vulnerable users of the net, but one concern is that it won't just be illegal websites that will be blocked," he added.

"You have to take extreme caution in how these things are rolled out and the uses to which they're put."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8413377.stm

I can see what they are trying to achieve (the internet is rather effective at killing innocence) but I can also see this quickly devolving into a mess run by the moral mafia, taking out hits on anything that vaguely indecent on face value.

If they use a light touch and only ban extreme sites and are accountable about what has been banned to the public I might even support it. But I imagine we will have a ham-fisted and a very liberal interpretation of what 'criminal content' is.

What say you, depraved web-junkies of dakka?

Aye, save the little ones...

It's too late for me anyway...

I think it's great that Australia is developing a powerful censorship tool. There are several markets around the world which will pay big money for it, like China, Burma and Saudi Arabia.

So people can buy this filter they've developed, and install it into their computers to make sure they don't accidentally go to any websites they don't want to see? That sounds like a great ide- oh wait, no, they're imposing this on everyone. But it's for the children!

Their aims aren't noble enough for this to be a noble failure.

I also like the plan to subsidise ISPs who filter out unpleasant websites.

It should be pretty easy to build sites automatically by script, in order to ban them for the grant.

I wonder if 4Chan and other forums will be affected by this.

Seems like a wasted effort that could start a slipper slope to a China-esque Internet. Aren't there parenting-locks available already from most ISPs that filters out such content already? Is the law addressing a problem Australia is having - I don't know much about that country period much less their crime rates and their source of info.

Are books like these banned down under too?

Hmmm... tricky one - they could block access to child porn (which is a plus), but they could also decide to block access to legal porn (:( booo!).

Any internet site which the independent screening council takes a dislike to will be put on the banned list, so it could easily affect 4chan.

Remember earlier this year the UK Authority For Interfering In Internet Stuff banned Amazon because they have an album cover which has a picture of a naked girl on. It's been on sale since 1975 or something.

While I agree that monitoring what your children (and indeed all children) have acess to via the interwebs,I can not condone censorship and the posibility of "slippery slope" politics concerns me.

I'm sure the recording companies and the entertainment industry's lawyers will love this stuff though. Australia just might be the biggest player in the "illegal downloading war".

As a citizen its too close to 1984 and China for comfort. Give me my Anarchist's Cookbook and the choice to access Finalgear.com; a forum for those unfortunate not to live in the UK to download pure episodes of the best show on TV today: Top Gear. BBC America edits out the music, segments, etc and just sucks in comparison to the original.

Albatross wrote:... but they could also decide to block access to legal porn (:( booo!).

Dear lord, WHY!!! ANSWER ME!!!

@FITZZ - We have to have SOME censorship (they can't show kiddie porn on breakfast news shows, per ejemplo...) - the difficulty is knowing where to draw the line. I think it is intended to prevent illegal activity (pro-terrorism web-sites, paedo stuff, white power stuff, illegal downloading) - but it IS a slippery slope, for sure.

Albatross wrote:@FITZZ - We have to have SOME censorship (they can't show kiddie porn on breakfast news shows, per ejemplo...) - the difficulty is knowing where to draw the line. I think it is intended to prevent illegal activity (pro-terrorism web-sites, paedo stuff, white power stuff, illegal downloading) - but it IS a slippery slope, for sure.

I agree with you concerning the need to monitor/censor/eradicate sights that would exploit children,advocate terrorism and such.
I just have a "knee jerk" reaction when I see these sort of "for public saftey" ideas being brought to the table,maybe I'm just searching for "orwellian overtones",but they always make me a bit wary.

This is appalling. If I lived in Australia. . . gak would go down between me and the government.

This is the first step on a very slippery slope. The fact that people would even be considering this is terrifying.
Why people feel the need to control other people's lives is completely beyind me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:@FITZZ - We have to have SOME censorship

No. ANY censorship is wrong. If something offends you then don't bother with it. Just because you don't agree with something, or even if the vast majority of people don't agree with something, that is no reason to censor or ban it.

@Rubiks

OK cool, so Bin Laden should be allowed to advertise on US TV for new terrorists? Child porn should be legal? Animal porn should have a place in mainstream broadcasting?

Do behave.

If a picture of Christ with an erection appeared on US TV, your country would erupt.

rubiksnoob wrote:
No. ANY censorship is wrong. If something offends you then don't bother with it. Just because you don't agree with something, or even if the vast majority of people don't agree with something, that is no reason to censor or ban it.

Yes it is, and has been for some time. When something is censored or banned it doesn't disappear, it just gets harder to find, and therefore easier to ignore. You're essentially yelling at people for doing exactly what you recommend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:
If a picture of Christ with an erection appeared on US TV, your country would erupt.

Shhh...don't reveal the plan.

Dogma wrote:

If a picture of Christ with an erection appeared on US TV, your country would erupt.

Shhh...don't reveal the plan.

@Dogma - Listening to some Dakkaites, you'd think Obama used it for his campaign-poster!

@Albatross

I don't think I'm getting my point across.
The government shouldn't be the one to determine what is or is not allowed. Those choices should be up to the individual. If a television network wants to have bin laden ads, good for them but I won't be watching that channel. If something is offensive to you, ignore it.

P.S.
Please don't make sweeping generalisations like that about people's countries. Not everyone in the US are white consevative christians, as many people like to think.

P.P.S.
As an atheist, if a picture of Jesus with a boner popped up on my tv I would probably laugh.

Cane wrote:I'm sure the recording companies and the entertainment industry's lawyers will love this stuff though. Australia just might be the biggest player in the "illegal downloading war".

The more conspiratorial parts of my brain are wondering if this is really all about illegal downloading. Then I remember that the Rudd government are a bunch of wowsers... Either way this sucks.

What on earth is a wowser?

rubiksnoob: So you're saying that we SHOULD have Child Porn on the evening news?

"And right after the weather, we'll have some bestiality mixed up with three-year-old girls. We should warn you that some, maybe all of our viewers will find this offensive, if so please change the channel."

Rubiks wrote:I don't think I'm getting my point across.
The government shouldn't be the one to determine what is or is not allowed. Those choices should be up to the individual.

So in your opinion we should legalise Heroin, theft, child Pornography, terrorism and murder - because of 'Choice'? That is effectively what you're saying. Governments exist to govern people - that's what they're for. The amount of individualism you are talking about is unrealistic.

Please don't make sweeping generalisations like that about people's countries. Not everyone in the US are white consevative christians, as many people like to think.

No-one mentioned race, babe. Or Conservativism. The US is an overwhelmingly Christian nation, such an image would offend even moderate christians in any country.

As an atheist, if a picture of Jesus with a boner popped up on my tv I would probably laugh.

Me too. Shhhh.

I'm saying no such thing. I'm saying that anyone controlling anyone else's life is wrong.

Completely different.

And I'm saying you're a little naive if you believe you have absolute control over your life. Read Althusser.

Cane wrote:
Are books like these banned down under too?

Books? What be these daemons you call books? We shalt not let the beast of information pierce the protective light of heaven & ignorance cast by our father who art Rudd.

Orkeosaurus wrote:What on earth is a wowser?

Someone who uses their morality to justify ruining other people's fun.

@Albatross

I would not be opposed to the legalizing of heroin or any other currently illegal drug for that matter. If people want to do crap like that to themselves let them. Personally, I wouldn't but people should be allowed to choose for themselves. I obviosly would be opposed to legalizing murder, theft, etc. Laws are good when they protect people from violating other's rights, such as protecting people from being murdered, stolen from, as those violate your rights to life and property. However if a website contains information that you find offensive then don't visit that website. simple as that. No government interference needed.

rubiksnoob wrote:This is appalling. If I lived in Australia. . . gak would go down between me and the government.

This is the first step on a very slippery slope. The fact that people would even be considering this is terrifying.
Why people feel the need to control other people's lives is completely beyind me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:@FITZZ - We have to have SOME censorship



No. ANY censorship is wrong. If something offends you then don't bother with it. Just because you don't agree with something, or even if the vast majority of people don't agree with something, that is no reason to censor or ban it.

No, not everyone in the U.S. is a conservative christian, but there are a LOT of Christians who, conservative or not, would be outraged at seeing their savior in a sexual context.

The government SHOULD determine what is and is not allowed. That is what it does, and laws it creates should reflect the will of the people. There is a good reason why I can't murder my neighbour on a whim or hire child porn at the local VideoEzy. They are condemned by the vast majority of moral codes we live by.

The censorship is probably a slippery slope that draws comparisons to China, but surely you can't allow open slather forever? We aren't talking about smothering political discussion (although a potential for this abuse may exist), it is concerned with stopping people from reading and seeing things that are abhorrent. About a year ago I met a 14 year old girl who casually mentioned that she uses 4chan.

Woah, ninja'd many times.

Teh_K42 wrote:About a year ago I met a 14 year old girl who casually mentioned that she uses 4chan.

Was she hot?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:What on earth is a wowser?

Someone who uses their morality to justify ruining other people's fun.

You'd think with the number of them running around here I'd have known they were called that!

@ the k42

Unless the government is a complete and total direct democracy, the governemnt should not be in charge of what is or is not allowed, AS IT PERTAINS TO PERSONAL FREEDOM AND CHOICE. I am not saying that they should legalize murder. In the representative democracy that we live in (in the US) Our elected representatives do not always make choices based on what the majority of their constituents want, but based upon their own personal biases.

@Rubiksnoob - You talk about rights as if they actually exist. The government decides which rights you have, and which you don't. No human being has the inherent 'right' to property - it's an abstract concept, as are all 'rights' - even 'the right to life'.

If they casually mention they use 4chan, then obviously not.

I don't think it matters whether the majority rules through direct voting on policy or through electing representatives. In either case simply being the majority doesn't justify telling the minority what they can do.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't think it matters whether the majority rules through direct voting on policy or through electing representatives. In either case simply being the majority doesn't justify telling the minority what they can do.

Why's that?

Albatross wrote:@Rubiksnoob - You talk about rights as if they actually exist. The government decides which rights you have, and which you don't. No human being has the inherent 'right' to property - it's an abstract concept, as are all 'rights' - even 'the right to life'.

Being an abstract concept doesn't mean something is nonexistent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't think it matters whether the majority rules through direct voting on policy or through electing representatives. In either case simply being the majority doesn't justify telling the minority what they can do.

Why's that?

Because it's immoral.

Was she hot?

BAD ORKEOSAURUS! VERY BAD!

Rubiksnoob the problem with letting people do whatever they wan't as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else is that it DOES hurt others inderectly. That heroin junkie could be out of work, perhaps resorting to crime to fund the addiction all the while neglecting his/her children. A drain on society and a tragic waste of life.

Child neglect and theft are already illegal.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Teh_K42 wrote:About a year ago I met a 14 year old girl who casually mentioned that she uses 4chan.

Was she hot?

Oh, you!





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Being an abstract concept doesn't mean something is nonexistent.

True, but it's existence is only determined by consensus.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't think it matters whether the majority rules through direct voting on policy or through electing representatives. In either case simply being the majority doesn't justify telling the minority what they can do.

Why's that?

Because it's immoral.

And why is that?

Albatross wrote:True, but it's existence is only determined by consensus.

I disagree. Why should my perception of reality hinge on what I perceive other people think, based on their own perceptions, instead of my own immediate perceptions?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Because it's immoral.

And why is that?

Because I think so.

Emperors Faithful wrote:And why is that?

Because democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
Because the truth remains the truth, whether it is believed by one person or a million.
Because populations freak out over random stuff and support doing horrible things to minority populations in their own country.
Because a right that exists only as long the majority permits me to have it is not a right.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Because it's immoral.

And why is that?

Because I think so.

Ah, but you're the minority. So you don't get to decide what's immoral.

GOD DAMN IT AUSTRILIA!
i'm from there. why? whY?
NO well what guys do when they have spare time. -.- ahhh the great outdoors of austrilia. where you can wear a hat whereever you go.

Surf?

Good answer.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Because it's immoral.

And why is that?

Because I think so.

Ah, but you're the minority. So you don't get to decide what's immoral.

2+2=4

I disagree. Why should my perception of reality hinge on what I perceive other people think, based on their own perceptions, instead of my own immediate perceptions?

Because you can percieve your rights to exist, but that has no meaning unless the rest of society is in agreement - your belief in a 'right to life' is meaningless if the wider society has no concept of it. Your right to exist is not as fundamental as the ability to respire. Animals have no 'right to life' between themselves, although pack mentality could be considered to be roughly analogous perhaps...

Society is as much an abstract concept as rights are, if not more so.

It seems like what you really must mean to say is that rights come from power; it doesn't matter what the majority thinks if the minority has all the guns. The government has many guns, of course, but the government can't be everywhere, and locked in a room with a murderer your rights are whatever he thinks they are. But, of course, now morality only refers to whatever you are physically able to do.

Kilkrazy wrote:I think it's great that Australia is developing a powerful censorship tool. There are several markets around the world which will pay big money for it, like China, Burma and Saudi Arabia.

Australia needn't waste time developing any censorship tool - they can simply outsource to China and use that tool. It's pretty darn effective from what I understand.
____

Orkeosaurus wrote:2 + 2 = 4

You are wrong.

2 + 2 = 5

Report for reeducation.

You'll never find me in an attic above an antique shop!

K.Rudd just wants us to be more like his friends on the 'other' mainland.

He already speaks mandarin (and is a tool to boot), and has had it legislated that all school children learn an 'asian' language at school. He's the only PM we've had MORE boring than John Howard.

Like learning Bahasa helps any of them when they holiday in Bali (locals will generally speak Javanese).

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:2 + 2 = 4

You are wrong.

2 + 2 = 5

Report for reeducation.

Damn.
Beat me to it.

Japan already has this type of unversial blocking. Any streaming site from China is blocked a la Youko or tudou for example. It's all a waste of cash as someone will develop some uber IP hider that goes around it...probably the same company.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I disagree. Why should my perception of reality hinge on what I perceive other people think, based on their own perceptions, instead of my own immediate perceptions?

It shouldn't but morality isn't real in any sense that isn't defined by strict physicalism. It certainly exists, but existence is not the same thing as reality.

What's the difference?

Existence has a looser meaning that includes ephemeral things like ideas, emotions, or souls. Reality generally denotes only objects which can be physically observed, or referenced.

For example, categories exist, but they are not real. The universe exists, but it isn't real (only the objects that it is composed of are).

Another way to look at it: reality does not include things which can only be observed in theory, or through extensive artifice.

Hmm. Alright, I'll remember to make the distinction in philosophical discussions.

I break internet filters in school.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:rubiksnoob: So you're saying that we SHOULD have Child Porn on the evening news?

"And right after the weather, we'll have some bestiality mixed up with three-year-old girls. We should warn you that some, maybe all of our viewers will find this offensive, if so please change the channel."

Child porn is disgusting and bad,but legal porn.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Aye, save the little ones...

It's too late for me anyway...

Then I'm half damned,right guy is pedobear,but who is the left guy in black templar armor,I have seen him before,but I haven't learned about his name.

"How about you take a seat over here sir..."

@Orkeo + Dogma


Yeah, perhaps 'exist' was a bit vague on my part. But 'rights' are no more a 'given' than say, language. Both require a certain amount of agreement for them to 'exist'. They are arbitrary.

That was my point.

Emperors Faithful wrote:"How about you take a seat over here sir..."

So he is Chris Hansen.

On the plus side, we will soon have Gun Kata...

Once again I ran out of patience by the end of the first page.

There is a difference between making wrong behaviour illegal and limiting access to information.

It is already illegal in Australia to make or download child porn. In fact an Australian was prosecuted for having a cartoon of Lisa Simson doing something inappropriate for a child of her age (if she were actually a child instead of a drawing.) It is already illegal to conspire to cause explosions, and so on.

As is this the case, why is it necessary for the government to limit internet access? Is it necessary to limit access to petrol to stop people from speeding?

There are several potential problems with the whole thing.

1. It's very expensive and won't work.

2. It will probably drive real offenders more underground.

3. It will lull parents and teachers into a false sense of security.

4. It will mistakenly limit access to completely legitimate information. (Similar to the net censorship programs already used in some places, which stop a woman accessing information about breast cancer because the program can't tell the difference between medical images and porn.

5. It may also inadvertently criminalise ordinary behaviour such as children "playing doctor". This has already happened in the US and UK with recent child porn laws.

6. Once installed, the system could conceivably be used for wrong purposes such as spying on political opponents and limiting freedom of information.

As usual there is no convincing evidence that watching porn or violence actually does affect people's psychology. This undermines the objective of the system.

If people are worried about the possible effect on children, which concerns me too. Australia already has access to age rating laws and the PEGI system for games and online.

Real sex sites are very concerned to run a good age rating system because they are in a legitimate business and do not want it closed down by some stupid teenagers hacking their way in.

Lastly, as with all child protection, the first line of defence should always be the parents.

Kill them, kill them all.

DEATH TO ALL FANATICS!

@KK: those are all good points, BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN!


And seriously, Australia is a democracy. If you gave their government unlimited, unrestricted surveillance power, I'm sure they could be trusted with it. It's not like they're a bunch of Brits with cameras everywhere, or Americans with their warrantless wiretaps...

It's going to fail for one simple reason:

The banned sites will be selected by an independent classification body guided by complaints from the public

So once again the people who bitch loudest will get their way. This won't just be kiddy porn or how to build a bomb, it'll become a beatstick for the fad of the moment.

Kilkrazy wrote:1. It's very expensive and won't work.

The work of a couple dozen software engineers can't survive under the combined ingenuity of a tens of thousands of pissed off hackers. The music industry and film industry are both learning this the hard way.

Kilkrazy wrote:3. It will lull parents and teachers into a false sense of security.

Which is a big problem. Parents today are getting too hands off (Hence we get calls for government censorship of the internet instead of parents monitoring what their kids do.

Kilkrazy wrote:4. It will mistakenly limit access to completely legitimate information. (Similar to the net censorship programs already used in some places, which stop a woman accessing information about breast cancer because the program can't tell the difference between medical images and porn.

Another serious concern and one that will happen. The line between many things is going to be obvious to a human and blurry to a computer. Given the purpose of such a system I'd be willing to be it'll operate on a ban first, unban later set up.

Kilkrazy wrote:6. Once installed, the system could conceivably be used for wrong purposes such as spying on political opponents and limiting freedom of information.

With this system in place it'll be easier for the government to track who's looking at what and if you spend a bit too much time looking at the wrong things.... [/tinfoilhat]

Kilkrazy wrote:Lastly, as with all child protection, the first line of defence should always be the parents.

Sadly in this day and age it seems to be more and more that parents expect to be the last line.

Father of 2 with a 3rd on the way speaking here.

Albatross wrote:Yeah, perhaps 'exist' was a bit vague on my part. But 'rights' are no more a 'given' than say, language. Both require a certain amount of agreement for them to 'exist'. They are arbitrary.

Ah, but the concepts described by a language are maintained even if the words change.

A rose by any other name and so forth.

I don't think rights are arbitrary. They didn't just crystallise out of thin air like a snow shower. They were thought up to answer obvious human concerns and needs.

If you mean there are different systems of rights that is certainly true. It doesn't mean they are all equally valid.

Yeah, rights don't qualify as arbitrary. They follow from a purposeful examination of human wants, and needs.

I think what Albatross meant to suggest is that rights are not objective, which is rendered true by the presence of any public dissent.

But what about public dissent over Obama being born in Kenya?

The concept of 'Rights' are, in my mind, a legal representation of societies current morality. Without legal backing, any 'rights' are unenforceable, and therefore merely talk.

Consider the right to life vs the right of a woman to choose. Depending on your legal jurisdiction, the right to choose is an enforceable right (you may legally have abortions), whilst the 'right' to life is unenforceable.

In Australia, we do not have a Bill of Rights. Any rights we have are embedded in the constitution, or in case law - the right of free speech is not included in either (although we are a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). There are no legal boundaries of what the government can and cannot censor.

Orkeosaurus wrote:But what about public dissent over Obama being born in Kenya?

Dissent over a fact is distinct from dissent over a moral construct.

It would be comparable to dissent with respect the specific rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but it isn't the same as dissent with respect to the worth, or merit of those rights.

Its the difference between arguing X says Y (a statement of fact), and arguing that Y is a valuable thing (or at least more valuable than anything it excludes through its presence).

True that. Very well spoken darkkt.

EDIT: Ninja'd.

darkkt wrote:Without legal backing, any 'rights' are unenforceable, and therefore merely talk.

How do you reach that conclusion?

Or maybe I should say "either of those conclusions"?

Nice, just another grim step towards the "internet of tommorow" as I like to call it.

Nice decade it was, wasn't it?

@ergotoxin - Yeah, I'm sure it won't be long 'til we're all wearing matching grey jump-suits... (sigh)

@Orkeo - What I was driving at was that even fundamental 'rights' - like the right to life - are constructs.

@KK - I raised the whole 'child porn/terrorism' question because someone suggested that all censorship is unacceptable. My point was that some things have to be censored - but I don't support this internet filter thingy on those grounds. I don't support it at all.

Albatross wrote:@Orkeo - What I was driving at was that even fundamental 'rights' - like the right to life - are constructs.

Why does that matter? Math is a construct.

Albatross wrote: My point was that some things have to be censored

I still would have to question why you think some things 'have' to be censored.

Becuase they are, for want of a better word, 'bad'?

not everyone would agree on what is "bad". What is bad for you might be good for someone else.

@Orkeo - It matters because if they are 'constructed', they can be de-constructed, curtailed, changed or even removed depending on your circumstances. They are not 'inherent'.

rubiksnoob wrote:not everyone would agree on what is "bad". What is bad for you might be good for someone else.

Because we totally need to respect the choices of pedobears, and terrorist jihad 'warriors'....

@Alby:

But I can construct a chair, then deconstruct it, cut part of it off, or destroy it.

Is a chair less existent because of this?

I dun see it Orkeo. No double post here.

As to the chair though, I suppose you can do all that in your mind right? If I happen to open you head, or you are kind enough to open it for me, could I too see all of this take place?

@Rubiks - again, that is something which is 'agreed upon' within the wider society.

Wrexasaur wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:not everyone would agree on what is "bad". What is bad for you might be good for someone else.

Because we totally need to respect the choices of pedobears, and terrorist jihad 'warriors'....

You don't have to respect them. Just don't limit their freedoms, no matter how appalling they may seem to you.

As a side note, child porn seems to be being brought up a lot as an argument for censorship. Child porn would harm the child and therefore would be violating the childs rights. THAT'S why that is wrong and should be against the law. Not because it is appalling and offensive. Just because something is offensive is no reason to censor it.

@albatross

just because wider society agrees that something is "wrong" doesn't make it wrong for everyone.

@Orkeo - Well, yes - a chair is a construct, as is the concept of 'a chair'. That's structuralism, babe.

rubiksnoob wrote:You don't have to respect them. Just don't limit their freedoms, no matter how appalling they may seem to you.

As a side note, child porn seems to be being brought up a lot as an argument for censorship. Child porn would harm the child and therefore would be violating the childs rights. THAT'S why that is wrong and should be against the law. Not because it is appalling and offensive. Just because something is offensive is no reason to censor it.

It has a lot to do with respect. As in, I do not respect a persons 'right' to indulge in such activities as terrorism.

Please go into depth about what those freedoms would involve, and how that would coincide with current laws seen on a universal scale. They have the freedom to not do those things, as well as the other freedoms that society has set out in an organic way.

just because wider society agrees that something is "wrong" doesn't make it wrong for everyone.

Yeah, I really don't understand exactly what you are trying to say here... so far no one has said the OP was a good idea... regardless of how the current laws are working.

Rubiks wrote:Child porn would harm the child and therefore would be violating the childs rights.

But who decides what the child's rights are? Certainly not the child. That doesn't fit your definition of 'freedom'.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Albatross wrote: My point was that some things have to be censored

I still would have to question why you think some things 'have' to be censored.

For the most part I am whole heartedly against censorship,and agree with you Rubiksnoob in so much as "if it offends you, turn it the feth off."
However,I also see the need to prevent sites that would exploit children.
Do I agree that "Big Brother" should control acess to information/entertainment,hell no.
Do I feel that those who run child porn sites should be skined alive,hell yes.

all that i am trying to say is that censoring something because the majority of people find it offensive or disagree with it is wrong.

Wrexasaur wrote:I dun see it Orkeo. No double post here.

Yeah, it went away when I refreshed. Weird.

As to the chair though, I suppose you can do all that in your mind right? If I happen to open you head, or you are kind enough to open it for me, could I too see all of this take place?

I can refuse to recognize a chair in my head, I suppose.

rubiksnoob wrote:You don't have to respect them. Just don't limit their freedoms, no matter how appalling they may seem to you.

As a side note, child porn seems to be being brought up a lot as an argument for censorship. Child porn would harm the child and therefore would be violating the childs rights. THAT'S why that is wrong and should be against the law. Not because it is appalling and offensive. Just because something is offensive is no reason to censor it.

How about in instances where there is a naturally limited resource in which things can be communicated? (Namely thinking about the airwaves.)

Albatross wrote:@Orkeo - Well, yes - a chair is a construct, as is the concept of 'a chair'. That's structuralism, babe.

Cool!

I'm no great philosopher, unfortunately. I'm just trying to avoid studying for my finals...

@Rubiks
Why?

Because it's boring. :(

FITZZ wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:

Albatross wrote: My point was that some things have to be censored

I still would have to question why you think some things 'have' to be censored.

For the most part I am whole heartedly against censorship,and agree with you Rubiksnoob in so much as "if it offends you, turn it the feth off."
However,I also see the need to prevent sites that would exploit children.
Do I agree that "Big Brother" should control acess to information/entertainment,hell no.
Do I feel that those who run child porn sites should be skined alive,hell yes.

I am in total agreement with you there.
While child porn is offensive, it is also harmful, and therefore should be banned.
On the other hand, if you find a website that has offensive, but perfectly legal materiel that is no reason to censor it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@albatross

cuz it's WRONG.

here's where we start getting into the whole right and wrong is relative thing.

also because it discourages alternate opinions that go against what the majority believes.
I just believe that that is wrong.

@Orkeo - You ninja'd me right proper! The 'why?' was aimed at Rubiks... I understand why you're avoiding studying - I'm doing the same thing! I'm no great philosopher either (really? no gak....) - I just find things like structuralism and semiotics/semiology interesting. We've had to cover stuff like that on my course. What are you studying mate?

Majoritus Tyranus.

That really isn't the problem here. I kind of feel like we are arguing if the boat actually floats, when it is clear that it does so in the first place. You don't need to check if it is raining, when you know it is freaking raining.

Censorship may not be the most appealing way to deal with such issues, but it does seem to be the most pragmatic one. Even if I agree, or disagree with it, the idea is sound, and makes sense on many levels. There are very specific things that just have no place in our societies. Whether or not the greeks and romans performed atrocious acts of abuse, makes absolutely no difference to how those same acts effect our societies, in our era.

@ albatross

because it discourages alternate opinions that go against what the majority believes.
I just believe that that is wrong.

rubiksnoob wrote:all that i am trying to say is that censoring something because the majority of people find it offensive or disagree with it is wrong.

And for the most part I agree,I don't want someone dictating what "subversive" literature I can read,offensive music I can listen to or horrible violent or filthy films I can watch,if I want to watch 2 or 3 or 20 consenting adults feth each other silly then,as an adult,I should damn well be able to.
However,when it comes to "child predators" I couldn't care less about their "rights".

Albatross wrote:@Orkeo - You ninja'd me right proper! The 'why?' was aimed at Rubiks... I understand why you're avoiding studying - I'm doing the same thing! I'm no great philosopher either (really? no gak....) - I just find things like structuralism and semiotics/semiology interesting. We've had to cover stuff like that on my course. What are you studying mate?

Right now? Speech 101.

And I've already given all my speeches, but I need to be able to recognize all the jargon for the final...

rubiksnoob wrote:On the other hand, if you find a website that has offensive, but perfectly legal materiel that is no reason to censor it.

I am not sure why that was so hard to get out of you...

because it discourages alternate opinions that go against what the majority believes.
I just believe that that is wrong.

I am very sure that albatross is simply misunderstanding what you are saying. When you talk about things that are clearly within free speech grounds, then there is no clear reason to take actions against it, aside political motivations.

FITZZ wrote:And for the most part I agree,I don't want someone dictating what "subversive" literature I can read,offensive music I can listen to or horrible violent or filthy films I can watch,if I want to watch 2 or 3 or 20 consenting adults feth each other silly then,as an adult,I should damn well be able to.
However,when it comes to "child predators" I couldn't care less about their "rights".

There is a massive difference between those two situations at the core though. No one wants to be told that they can't read 1984, and after lunch time, they need to report for re-education.

if you find a website that has offensive, but perfectly legal materiel that is no reason to censor it.

Censorship makes offensive material illegal. And so the merry-go-round goes round....
I think your best position on this would be something along the lines of:'I don't always agree with things being censored'.


Everything is relative.

Albatross wrote:Everything is relative.

How relative though? Looking around the world, many nations have similar sets of morals and coinciding laws, even if there are various interpretations; the core is still there. I feel that a lot of this stuff pertaining to 'rights' and what not, is actually very primitive and instinctual overall.

FITZZ wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:all that i am trying to say is that censoring something because the majority of people find it offensive or disagree with it is wrong.

And for the most part I agree,I don't want someone dictating what "subversive" literature I can read,offensive music I can listen to or horrible violent or filthy films I can watch,if I want to watch 2 or 3 or 20 consenting adults feth each other silly then,as an adult,I should damn well be able to.
However,when it comes to "child predators" I couldn't care less about their "rights".

I would consider the right to freedom of speech's relation to child pornography as being similar to free trade's relation to stolen goods.

If you never had a right to have it in the first place you don't have any right to distribute it.

Wait, rubiksnoob, the OP isn't outlawing anything that's just offensive. It's outlawing things that are classed as 'criminal'. So yeah, Child Porn would probably be banned, as would Terrorist support groups, but legal Porn probably wouldn't.

Rubiks wrote:because it discourages alternate opinions that go against what the majority believes.
I just believe that that is wrong.

That's your opinion - I don't see anyone discouraging you from it. I understand what you're saying perfectly - I just think you're being a little absolutist. There are always shades of grey - everything is a 'slippery slope'. No-one is saying we should curtail free speech - but a society where absolutely ANYTHING goes would just be anarchy. Whilst that might sound fun, the reality is it would be anything but.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

How relative though? Looking around the world, many nations have similar sets of morals and coinciding laws, even if there are various interpretations; the core is still there.

Is it, though? The modern concept of 'Human Rights' is well, modern. Culture evolves, and the concept of 'right' has evolved alongside and within it. For example, we see women's rights as universal - but in fact that is not the case and has not always been the case in our respective countries. What would you consider our core 'rights'?

They're like little china! England isn't the only V for Vendetta hellscape out there!

Funny. Coming from you.

LOL@ShumaGorath


Oh, you...

Wrexasaur wrote:How relative though? Looking around the world, many nations have similar sets of morals and coinciding laws, even if there are various interpretations; the core is still there. I feel that a lot of this stuff pertaining to 'rights' and what not, is actually very primitive and instinctual overall.

But what we think of as fundamental rights now have not been supported for much of history. Rights represent cultural values, and cultural values have been very diverse.

Well, I don't know many cultures throughout history that have openly supported Child Porn or Bestiality.

In these past few centuries, modernization has brought a certain amount of end to that diversity; not to say much does not still exist. If we could take the basic ideas from the most prominent cultures (which are diverse in themselves) and compare them, they would not actually be all that different.

Do not kill others (with realistic expectations of course, war and stuff...), try not to harm others, and protect kids. Pretty basic stuff that many people have agreed upon for a very long time.

Wrexasaur wrote:In these past few centuries, modernization has brought a certain amount of end to that diversity; not to say much does not still exist. If we could take the basic ideas from the most prominent cultures (which are diverse in themselves) and compare them, they would not actually be all that different.

Do not kill others (with realistic expectations of course, war and stuff...), try not to harm others, and protect kids. Pretty basic stuff that many people have agreed upon for a very long time.

Kinda like what I said, albiet in a much more linguistic and understandable way.

And I managed to respond in a flat 12 seconds...



BANG!!!

Wanna fight about it?

*BANG*
Say Wuht-?

*Slump*

So fast the smoke didn't even come out of the gun my last picture... and my index finger shot you before I even drew my guns... THAT fast... that fast.

Damn...that's fast... XP

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, I don't know many cultures throughout history that have openly supported Child Porn or Bestiality.

But they existed. Both bestiality and sex with children was an accepted part of society at different times in ancient Greece.

Seriously, if you narrow rights down to things that all societies have accepted you end up with 'don't kill other people in our society unless they really pissed you off'.

sebster wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, I don't know many cultures throughout history that have openly supported Child Porn or Bestiality.

But they existed. Both bestiality and sex with children was an accepted part of society at different times in ancient Greece.

I honestly find this hard to believe. Unless it was the rest of Greece simply taking a 'liberal' attitude to people who did this.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I honestly find this hard to believe. Unless it was the rest of Greece simply taking a 'liberal' attitude to people who did this.

It is quite shocking by modern standards but it was accepted. A mature man taking a young boy under his guidance was a core of Greek culture for centuries, and for much of their history is was accepted, even expected, that the relationship be sexual. Bestiality played an important role in religious ceremony, and was at times a part of wider culture - it took a prominent place in the Roman games.

...wow. Didn't know that. And honestly, I didn't really want to.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, I don't know many cultures throughout history that have openly supported Child Porn or Bestiality.

I thought Scotland and New Zealand were both big on sheep, no?


And really, if these weren't um, popular activities, the Book of Leviticus wouldn't have to tell people not to do it.

Keep fething that chicken.

Wait... that wasn't Leviticus...

sebster wrote:
It is quite shocking by modern standards but it was accepted. A mature man taking a young boy under his guidance was a core of Greek culture for centuries, and for much of their history is was accepted, even expected, that the relationship be sexual. Bestiality played an important role in religious ceremony, and was at times a part of wider culture - it took a prominent place in the Roman games.

I can't imagine that sort of social acceptance being all that wide spread throughout the many cultures and societies of the world.

I've not looked into it really, but it strikes me as being roughly comparable to human sacrifice, which was quite widespread.

Well sebster is partially right. In Greece the relationships he described did exist but in a slightly different sense. The sexual element of the relationship did not involve anal or oral sex. Without going into graphic detail lets just say it involved the thighs...a lot....On the Roman attitude toward bestiality, and homosexuality, I don't find that to be at all accurate. It was widely considered to be offensive to call someone a homosexual, especially in the era of the Republic and early Empire. And while bestiality may have been practiced by some, namely some emperors such as Commodus, it was widely abhorred as being unnatural...

That is my understanding as well, though you probably have clearer knowledge on it.

There were many waves in both the Greek and Roman societies. As with any society, tolerance for certain behaviors, ebbed and flowed over time.

In terms of the relationships with young boys, I would imagine that 'practices' varied by household. I would not be surprised at all if the boys in many households were not merely symbols... like lawn gnomes or something . You have your fan-ladies, your grape servers, your midgets that run around serving wine, and some boys that kind of just sit there all the time. Not sure why they had them, but they had them, and they were simply part of their hired/owned personal entourage if you may.

It would be naive to say that this was always the case... but hey, it eases my mind a little bit.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Aye, save the little ones...

It's too late for me anyway...

Oh gods, I get that picture .

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, I don't know many cultures throughout history that have openly supported Child Porn or Bestiality.

Apparently the Wal-Mart culture does....here we see the human cross-bred with the obese octopus...

Hey, be nice. It isn't easy having a second pair of legs growing out of your back.

Back boobs?

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, I don't know many cultures throughout history that have openly supported Child Porn or Bestiality.

Apparently the Wal-Mart culture does....here we see the human cross-bred with the obese octopus...

0_0

Where can I find an Orkmoticon that's throwing up?

The Waaagh.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Fixed that for you.

That is why there is no vomiting orkmoticon, along with other factors...