Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| 2 cents We all know there is content online which is not suitable for all audiences. But sometimes the needs of the MANY outweigh the needs of the FEW… Especially when those labeled as “FEW” don’t have the best interest in mind for the “MANY.”
Unfortunately, the Internet can be good, can be bad, and certainly be VERY ugly. The only way that “Good” can reign most of the time is by filtering/preventing/inhibiting the bad from turning Ugly.
Sometimes “rights” and “privileges” which we all are entitled to have to suffer, so that the rest of us can stay safe.
Honestly, the enemy is hiding in plain sight. If the enemy could easily be identified, then there wouldn’t be a need for filters or the need to track people’s email or internet usage.
To make a long story short, all forms of “Extremism, Radicalism or Fanaticism” can potentially cause dangerous and risky conditions to the “MANY.” |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | said by flyingjoey:To make a long story short, all forms of “Extremism, Radicalism or Fanaticism” can potentially cause dangerous and risky conditions to the “MANY.” The problem with that logic is that the ultimate goal of these forms of "Extremism, Radicalism or Fanaticism" is to strip away our rights and privileges. I'll take the risk that comes along with freedom every time. I will die free rather than live safe and controlled. |
|
approval from:
iam x 
guitarzan
| reply to flyingjoey
Wow, you've really bought into that bush/terrorism fear.
The founding fathers would be outraged at the kind of censorship people are approving of,privacy rights that are quickly erroding (the us now wants access to read everthing sent over the internet!) which are all a vain attempt to "PROTECT" you.
Guess what? If the terrorists know the internet is being filtered and logged, they'll encrypt the data, put password on the site so the filtering people can't read it or they will just find another way to communicate, All you've accomplished is taken one more step in the governments goal of stripping you of as many rights as they can convince you it's a "good" idea to give up. |
|
 bencPremium
join:2007-06-17
Glen Carbon, IL
·Charter
| reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:I'll take the risk that comes along with freedom every time. I will die free rather than live safe and controlled. Amen, brother!
A plastic, sterile, "risk-free" life where I'm not allowed to do many things, even those that may be risky or stupid, doesn't sound appealing to me at all.
Do I have the right to sit on my butt and watch TV, instead of workout five times a week?
Do I have the right to drink that beer? Drink that martini?
Do I have a right to stay up late?
(Some say that it's not good for you, but I don't buy it).
Do I have the right to drive my car without wearing a seat belt?
How about riding a motorcycle without a helmet?
Or bungee-jumping?
The answers to these questions are a resounding YES! Or they should be. |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:I will die free rather than live safe and controlled. You already do live "safe and controlled." We're talking a matter of degrees, not absolutes. Everything from zoning laws, building codes and food/drug quality regulation.
This is what cracks me up about self-styled freedom fighters. They want it to go unquestioned that we live with a heaping pot of moderation and balancing of interests. And it's *popular*.
So get off yer high horse and stop speaking down to people like you're pure, and everyone else isn't.
Mark |
|
 John GaltForward, MarchPremium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
kudos:3 | reply to benc
said by benc:A plastic, sterile, "risk-free" life where I'm not allowed to do many things, even those that may be risky or stupid, doesn't sound appealing to me at all. Do I have the right to sit on my butt and watch TV, instead of workout five times a week? Do I have the right to drink that beer? Drink that martini? Do I have a right to stay up late? (Some say that it's not good for you, but I don't buy it). Do I have the right to drive my car without wearing a seat belt? How about riding a motorcycle without a helmet? Or bungee-jumping? The answers to these questions are a resounding YES! Or they should be. Take a look at 4:10 in...
»www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPrTP7vEH2E
--
A is A |
|
|
|
 CuchulainnThe Roar of the Masses Could be Farts
join:2000-11-09
Chevy Chase, MD | reply to flyingjoey
Ignore the troll. His EEG is -------------------- |
|
2 edits | reply to votum76i
dup post |
|
| reply to votum76i
said by votum76i :
Wow, you've really bought into that bush/terrorism fear.
The founding fathers would be outraged at the kind of censorship people are approving of,privacy rights that are quickly erroding (the us now wants access to read everthing sent over the internet!) which are all a vain attempt to "PROTECT" you.
Guess what? If the terrorists know the internet is being filtered and logged, they'll encrypt the data, put password on the site so the filtering people can't read it or they will just find another way to communicate, All you've accomplished is taken one more step in the governments goal of stripping you of as many rights as they can convince you it's a "good" idea to give up.
Uh, this isn't the US we're talking about. It's the UK proposing this. Your rant doesn't apply there. |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:said by jmn1207:I will die free rather than live safe and controlled. You already do live "safe and controlled." We're talking a matter of degrees, not absolutes. Everything from zoning laws, building codes and food/drug quality regulation. This is what cracks me up about self-styled freedom fighters. They want it to go unquestioned that we live with a heaping pot of moderation and balancing of interests. And it's *popular*. So get off yer high horse and stop speaking down to people like you're pure, and everyone else isn't. Mark I never claimed to be content with my current situation. I am continually trying to promote change. It's ridiculous, to me, the varying degree of freedom there is between Nevada and Alabama, not to mention Holland. Guns, drugs, gay marriage, scotch, certain words on TV, nudity, and on and on and on. Yes, these are controlled things, but none of them make me safe. The same thing applies to blocking child pornography and radical Islam sites. I want these types of restrictions removed, and I do everything I can, within reason, to make this happen.
I am all for extending our current "freedoms", and I strongly reject things that impose more restrictions on my freedoms, such as the Patriot Act. I have not had to take up arms or use force as our policies still allow for peaceful resolutions for change. Anarchy does not have to be complete chaos. I like the idea of traffic lights. Some things require a sense of order about them to work. I am intelligent enough to differentiate between realistic and idealistic freedoms.
The problem is that nobody wants to enforce the laws. Rather, in a futile effort to try and make it impossible to break the law in the first place, inevitably, it almost always seems to greatly restrict legitimate freedoms while doing very little to curb the illegal activity it was meant to control. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by jmn1207:Yes, these are controlled things, but none of them make me safe. And then:
said by jmn1207: I like the idea of traffic lights. Traffic lights don't make you safe? You think you'd be safer without them?
How about building codes and zoning laws? Don't those make you safe(er) from unscrupulous builders? Or, from purchasing a home only to find out your neighbor has decided to convert his house into a smelting plant? You'd prefer to live without any of that? (If so, welcome to the irrelevant fringe.).
You benefit from *tons* of social moderation which infringes otherwise absolute rights. It's just a matter of degrees, and should be spoken of as such.
Mark |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | 
Why do you insist that I see things only in black and white?
Again, I say that some things require a sense of order about them to work. I am intelligent enough to differentiate between realistic and idealistic freedoms.
It's not realistic to expect millions of vehicles to travel along a relatively small amount of space without some type of system in place to regulate the traffic.
It's idealistic to expect that by removing my shoes at the airport security check-in makes my flight any safer.
|
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by jmn1207:Why do you insist that I see things only in black and white? You're the one who said: "I'll take the risk that comes along with freedom every time."
It's convenient to make self-congratulating statements like that, and then begin dissembling about how you're ok with balancing freedom and risk when it comes to driving (traffic laws), or buying a home (building codes and zoning laws), or buying food at the grocery store (food quality laws), or investing in the stock market (the SEC).
said by jmn1207:It's idealistic to expect that by removing my shoes at the airport security check-in makes my flight any safer. I'd wager a large amount of money that the passengers on the shoe bomber's flight would disagree with you.
Mark |
|
 scrummie02BentleyPremium
join:2004-04-16
Arlington, VA
·Comcast
| comparing building codes and traffic laws isn't the same as blocking access to reading/media material and to compare the two is asinine. It serves no benefit other than it may block someone long enough to figure out how to use a work around such as a proxy website.
The things you listed benefit society in some way, obstructed freedom of speech or accessing dissenting ideas no matter how vile opens up the door to a higher "degree" of government interference in our lives. It's like you said we have to find an acceptable balance, blocking access to sites isn't in theat balance for me.
--
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. " - Thomas Jefferson |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by scrummie02:The things you listed benefit society in some way, obstructed freedom of speech or accessing dissenting ideas ... We've exchanged freedom to reduce risk with speech too. (The word "fire" in a theaters. Or, the words "bomb" and "hijack" in airports.). Banning violence-promoting websites is just one more degree.
said by scrummie02:It's like you said we have to find an acceptable balance, blocking access to sites isn't in theat balance for me. That's a reasonable position. The problem is that most people who oppose things like this speak in absolutes, as if they don't have a price at which they'll exchange freedoms to minimize risk (the original poster's statement).
Mark |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:It's convenient to make self-congratulating statements like that, and then begin dissembling about how you're ok with balancing freedom and risk when it comes to driving (traffic laws), or buying a home (building codes and zoning laws), or buying food at the grocery store (food quality laws), or investing in the stock market (the SEC). Regulation of this ilk makes a lot of sense. But I can still fly through a red light at an intersection or set my cruise control 8 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, the government has not installed "big brother" brakes or speed limiters on our cars. They won't either, even if it means saving thousands of lives. Traffic citations generate far too much revenue.
I signed a contract for the privilege of driving a vehicle on public roads. If I break the rules, enforce the laws. I don't have much of a problem with that rationalization. It is my choice to abide by these laws, as it seems to be the most reasonable method for me to get from point a to point b most efficiently. Nobody is thinking for me here, it is my decision. There is a stark difference in all of your examples from the type of rights and freedoms most of us are concerned about with regards to this topic.
If I knew beforehand that my intentionally dramatic comment would be analyzed by Spock to point out logical fallacies, I would have added an "almost" in there someplace. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by jmn1207:Regulation of this ilk makes a lot of sense. Other regulation (like banning speech inciting violence) makes sense to people too. Likewise, the ilk of regulation which makes sense to you didn't make sense to those folks who were negatively impacted by it when it was first debated and enacted. Those folks were screaming about "big brother." Now it's mainstream and other folks (like you) scream of "big brother" while saying "that other stuff makes sense to me."
said by jmn1207:But I can still fly through a red light at an intersection... the government has not installed "big brother" brakes or speed limiters on our cars. They'll do more than install "big brother" brakes, they'll revoke your license if you do it often enough. You might say "but they have to catch me first" -- which is why we installed red-light cameras. just for folks like you.
Nobody cares much about violence-inciting speech until it begins to incite real violence.
said by jmn1207:Traffic citations generate far too much revenue. That speaks volumes about your world view. As I noted above, they'll take your license. They're also famous for non-enforcement, using speed bumps instead. It seems they aren't interested in revenue.
said by jmn1207:I signed a contract for the privilege of driving a vehicle on public roads. ... It is my choice to abide by these laws, What about all the other exchanges of freedom to reduce risk? Like building and zoning laws? Food and drug quality? Environmental protection? Not shouting fire in a theater? (Or, "bomb" or "hijack" in an airport?). If you don't accept these, you at least benefit from them. Just like you'd benefit from traffic laws even if you individually didn't sign on to it.
Likewise, you benefit from banning someone from inciting people to riot (or commit other forms of violence).
said by jmn1207:There is a stark difference in all of your examples from the type of rights and freedoms most of us are concerned about with regards to this topic. You made the statement that you'll "accept the risk which comes along with freedom every time." But, now you're saying not "every time", just those freedoms *you* think are important.
said by jmn1207:I would have added an "almost" in there someplace. Good! It seems like wrong-headed absolutist positions are fueled by unchallenged wrong-headed absolutist rhetoric.
Mark |
|
jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | In your examples, my freedom of choice can still be exercised. I can still scream "fire!" in a crowded theatre. I personally don't believe this in itself should be a crime. If it incites a riot and people and property are damaged, then enforce those laws that already exist. A more accurate analogy, when compared to blocking websites, would be for the theatre to staple my mouth shut so I can't scream "fire!". Even then, if the theatre is privately owned, they should have the freedom to tape someones mouth shut if that is how they want to run their business.
When I talk of freedoms, I refer to core human rights that I believe we should all be afforded. I understand that in a society we can't all just run around doing whatever we like; however, I still consider my rights to be severely restricted, and I would like to see more changes as we become a more open-minded society. You talk of building zones and FDA regulations that have very little to do with the types of liberties Patrick Henry would have died to protect. Those are fair, agreed-upon solutions that have real benefits to society when we adhere to these regulations. And all of these regulations can be modified if they become outdated or overreaching.
This topic is about freedom of expression being forcibly removed and silenced. And for that, it goes back to that same old tired yet inspiring quote, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wholeheartedly agree in principle with this perception of freedom. And I believe that it applies in this situation with radical Islam sites. |
|
| reply to flyingjoey
There was a recent poll in which 53% of Americans surveyed said that they believed that God created Man "as is" and evolution didn't happen. Only 1.2% said that evolution happened and God didn't play any part.
By your logic, the "right" of the many to not hear anything (or have their kids hear anything) about God not creating man overwhelms the "right" of the few to challenge the beliefs of the many. This means (by your logic again) that we should ban the few from ever saying that God had no place in the development of man. We should block all websites that say this and shouldn't teach pure evolution in schools. After all, to the "many", someone saying that God didn't have any say in creating man is a "extreme" and "radical" idea which can "potentially cause dangerous and risky conditions to the many" (damnation to hell for doubts instilled by the few).
Of course, this is all rubbish and we should do no such thing. But the same applies to Radical Islamic websites. We shouldn't be filtering/blocking them. At most, if we know where they are, we should have a police force that monitors them and mines them for information on attacks. But don't block them outright.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:If it incites a riot and people and property are damaged, then enforce those laws that already exist. We do have laws against inciting a riot for example. They don't wait for an actual riot to occur. The premise goes back to common law against breaches of the peace (that it's a breach to instigate a breach).
The difference which I believe you're trying to get at is that if preemptive laws (to preserve the peace) are enforced too aggressively, the affected person can exercise due process to argue their plight before a jury of their peers. Blocking web sites could only be remedied through the more convoluted process of civil courts (in this country at least).
This topic seems to cross the line between local inciting and national (which would make it a national security issue). For example, the difference between a union member agitating assembled strikers to violence against a company, and an organized group agitating for violence against a nation (for socio-political change). If that organized group is mainly foreign, even more so.
We already make the distinction that national security trumps your rights. You don't have a right to know troop movements or to travel freely in a war zone. You might disagree that Islamic radicalism rises to this level. I'm not sure myself. As I said in another post, I think it would be more constructive to leave the sites accessible and gather intelligence about who's attracted to them. Then target more specific surveillance using those findings.
said by jmn1207:When I talk of freedoms, I refer to core human rights that I believe we should all be afforded. I understand that in a society we can't all just run around doing whatever we like... Great. Hopefully next time you'll say "I'll accept the risk that comes along with freedoms *I* believe we should all be afforded, with exceptions for what *I* think is pointless and just 'doing what we like,' not benefiting society."
If folks added qualifiers like this, they might be more humble when criticizing what may be just one more degree along the scale of "benefits to society." Personally, I don't think the risk to individual freedoms is encroaching government, it's unrealistic, absolutist, unobjective, polarizing rhetoric. Simplistic jargon has never been good for this country.
This reminds me of how self-styled freedom fighters misquote Ben Franklin, omitting important qualifiers ("essential liberty" and "little temporary safety"). Without those qualifiers it sounds soooo absolute and unarguable. (Like quoting the Bible.). But, with qualification it's more realistic. It's ok to trade liberties that are non-essential? And/or, if the trade results permanent safety? Or, in more than just a little safety? Thus begins the mindful debate which the misquote forecloses.
said by jmn1207:You talk of building zones and FDA regulations that have very little to do with the types of liberties Patrick Henry would have died to protect. On the one hand, I don't know how you can know with such certainty what Patrick Henry would have died to protect. Building codes and zoning laws directly affect what would otherwise be absolute property rights, your right to dispose of your property any way you wish. Food and drug quality laws artificially limit willing buyers and sellers (free association). In both cases there were/are losers in the interest of collective interests ("the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" so to speak.).
On the other hand, I think you're right because the Founders' rhetoric didn't match their practices. For example, they abandoned a relatively simple (unobtrusive) government for a relatively mammoth one. When they abandoned the Articles of Confederation after 11 years in favor of the Federal Constitution (with loopholes concerning "reasonable searches and seizures" that didn't exist before 1789), they advanced more "big brother" government (relatively speaking) than *any* generation since.
They also had the equivalent of welfare and zoning laws far more coercive than ours today.
Also, not long after Patrick Henry laws against inciting a riot were hugely popular. The 1820s and 1830s were notorious for riots.
said by jmn1207:Those are fair, agreed-upon solutions that have real benefits to society when we adhere to these regulations. The point is, there's always a vast disparity between what individuals believe are "fair and will benefit society." We have a huge history of exchanging individual freedom for the "benefit of society."
When people say something like "I don't need handouts from society," "I rely upon myself," or "I'll always take liberty over safety (the opposite of risk)" it's unrealistic and self-serving. It's designed to say "forget about all these things I think are fair, I want to have this high regard for myself."
Mark |
|
