Internet Censorship

esuhl

DatabaseError wrote: »

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

No, no, no! Educate them. Then they'll probably want to shoot themselves out of shame!

Tragically, our entire political and media systems are based on image and sensationalism. Media agencies have become more powerful than political leaders. By uncritically absorbing what they report, believing that most of the stories are relevant, and thinking that we are getting a complete picture of the world, we are deceiving ourselves in the worst possible way.

Trying to determine what is going on in the world by reading newspapers is like trying to tell the time by watching the second hand of a clock. (Ben Hecht)

The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. (Thomas Jefferson)

DatabaseError

Sadly we get the media 'we' demand, "Terror alert at 10,000 FEET" sells more papers than "Idiot singes pubes", though both stories have the same content.
It's no more dangerous to walk the streets of Britain today than it was 20 years ago, indeed it is probably a little safer, and 'terrorism' is a far less significant threat than it was then, but that message won't drive sales.
Denying the idiots the publicity they crave will reduce public interest + 'terror', if these events are treated as isolated and generally idiotic then they will lose their perceived potency.

esuhl

“Naturally the common people don't want war... That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” (Herman Goering)

But now the media are our leaders. They selectively report half-truths from politicians, and abuse their vested interests and our faulty reasoning to give us a completely distorted view of reality.

nonpol

A new unit ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/28/imp_ccd/

busenbust

Heliflyguy

ComplexP wrote: »

Really? Sounds ominous, but it would be consistent with Labour's current quest to stamp out all individual choice and treat everyone like they're 5 years old.

On the other hand, something as complex as Golden Shield would be fairly tough to replicate in the UK especially when you consider that most of what the government tries to do never works

Especially if its IT related, how do they keep getting it sooooo wrong.
Got to go want to get back to Blair witch inquiry.

busenbust

busenbust

SailorSam

PROLIANT wrote: »

Agreed, but leave Adult !!!!!! alone!

I think i must be getting old, while watching a !!!!!! channel the other night i found myself thinking, ..
,, that looks a nice comfy bed.

busenbust

WASHINGTON — “On the Internet, the First Amendment is a local ordinance,” said Fred H. Cate, a law professor at Indiana University. He was talking about last week’s ruling from an Italian court that Google executives had violated Italian privacy law by allowing users to post a video on one of its services. In one sense, the ruling was a nice discussion starter about how much responsibility to place on services like Google for offensive content that they passively distribute.
But in a deeper sense, it called attention to the profound European commitment to privacy, one that threatens the American conception of free expression and could restrict the flow of information on the Internet to everyone.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28liptak.html

Nice article :cool: