Internet Censorship

joeypesci

nonpol wrote: »

Chinese style Internet Censorship - coming soon!

Australia, then Germany, now Italy....

Roll out the VPN's

BritRael

nonpol wrote: »

Think of it this way.

1. Agenda 2. Problem. 3. Reaction. 4.Solution.

1. Restrict the Internet / Inadvertently also free speech. 2. Single person convicted of Child !!!!!!, but more enforcement of the Net needed, "for your safety". / Person could be a patsy. 3. Public Agree or don't disagree. (Same thing). 4. Restrict the Internet / Agenda Implemented.

I agree with your logic.

However, #2 is flawed. It is not a case of just a 'single person convicted..'. There have been many cases of internet child !!!!!! and they continue...

My point was aimed at the media, who in their pursuit of 'freedom of speech' actually help the people that they are reporting as a menace to society. Including child molesters, rapists, murderers and terrorists. This is what should be censored, because every time they do it they are making the job of the security forces more and more difficult.
As Jackson Browne once sung: "they don't seem to understand, the way the hammer shapes the hand.."

busenbust

nonpol

FYI.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Mozilla-leader-worries-about-apf-712012919.html?x=0&.v=3

busenbust

busenbust

Made me laugh...

esuhl

Oneday77 wrote: »

There will be a nanny state regardless of goverment or the will of the people.

A nanny state can only occur through the will of government. And the government is (well, should be) the will of the people.

Oneday77 wrote: »

Political Correctness is good for the genuine innocent ie kids.

I'm not sure that it is. Some things should quite rightly be illegal. But children shouldn't get the impression that the world is a lovely place where nothing bad ever happens... because it will be one hell of a shock to them when they discover that it isn't. Children need to learn how to deal with ideas/people they find offensive or objectionable in a mature and tolerant way.

Oneday77 wrote: »

Everyone else can make their choices, I can always move to another country that shares my views if I wish.

You really think you can find a country that shares all your views?! Will everyone in this country have identical opinions? And why should you have to move anyway?

HO87

BritRael wrote: »

I agree with your logic.

However, #2 is flawed. It is not a case of just a 'single person convicted..'. There have been many cases of internet child !!!!!! and they continue...

My point was aimed at the media, who in their pursuit of 'freedom of speech' actually help the people that they are reporting as a menace to society. Including child molesters, rapists, murderers and terrorists. This is what should be censored, because every time they do it they are making the job of the security forces more and more difficult.
As Jackson Browne once sung: "they don't seem to understand, the way the hammer shapes the hand.."

I think you may have missed the point. It is the security forces and the government themselves that provide the feed to the news media of these type of arrests and convictions. The media then obligingly whip up public opinion so that we then demand the very things the security forces and government want in the first place. This is how problem-reaction-solution works.

Remember the pants bomber at Christmas? We were all shown on TV and in the press photos of the contents of the bomb and how and where it had been secreted and how it had gone completely undetected. How did this material find its way into the press? Because the FBI released it to them. Demands were immediately made for "better security" to be implemented and the government steps forward with the solution - full body scanners.

Think about ID cards. If you read government documents about the implementation programme it is immediately obvious that, come what may, the cards are to be brought in and the bulk of the documents set out various methods by which the public can be sold the idea and variations on the slow roll-out. Every opportunity has been taken to exploit opportunities - especially in terrorist cases - to flog the idea to us again and again. This will continue in such a way that people will end up demanding that we have them - although I think cost may end up sinking the project for a while.

This is how this works and it is how, whether by design or accident, our rights have been whittled away over the last 8 years.

Whilst I would never advocate that murderers et al should not be dealt with its a question of keeping things in proportion. For example, we now suffer roughly the same number of murders as the country had during Victorian times but with a population that is double the size and with a detection rate that is far greater than it was 120 years ago. There are around 800 murders a year in a population of 65million so don't allow yourself to be drawn along by the line taken in the press - the risk is no greater than it was along time ago.

As for terrorism, the constant mantra is "we can't let them win". I think they have. Is it just me or is it a coincidence that at the very same point as we see articles in the press suggesting that the "freedom" of the internet has gone too far we are told that the "terrorist" threat-level is being raised because of "increased" terror-linked chatter - principally on the internet?

Most governments are desperate to be able to have more control (which actually means "visibility") of the internet and, if they haven't got enough already, they are going to get it.

What really sticks in my craw is that we are constantly bombarded with comment about terrorism. What I find really quite odd is that whilst terrorism may have killed people in the last 10 years or so were these figures of deaths compared with the huge numbers dying as a result of the drugs trade and the astronomic sums of money the trade now deals in I can't work out why we are concentrating so much on a fanatical few when the far greater danger to society is being almost completely ignored (by comparison).

BTW - My neighbours do not have a ray-gun in their loft they aim at me and nor are "they" after me.

esuhl

Eloquently put. HO87. I couldn't agree with you more.

There's a really engaging book I read a while ago that shows how we are deceived by lack of information and our thought processes, and how governments and media exploit that. It's not a book of conspiracy theories, but of clear facts and the "public relations" exercises that shape our beliefs. (Well, the second half is - the first half is more about logic and rigorous thinking).

Hope someone finds it as interesting as I did - you can read part of it on Google Books via the link below. The whole book is great, but if you want to cut to the chase, I can thoroughly recommend the section on the Media (page 267 onwards).

A Short Course in Intellectual Self-Defense by Normand Baillargeon

This book ought to be on the national curriculum!

DatabaseError

esuhl wrote: »

This book ought to be on the national curriculum!

Sorry..I read that as "Daily Mail readers should be shot" ...not sure why? :A