UK Wants 'Radical Islam' Internet Filters > 2 cents

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.”

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.

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.

said by jmn1207:

I will die free rather than live safe and controlled.

said by amigo_boy:

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

said by jmn1207:

Yes, these are controlled things, but none of them make me safe.

said by jmn1207:

I like the idea of traffic lights.

said by jmn1207:

Why do you insist that I see things only in black and white?

said by jmn1207:

It's idealistic to expect that by removing my shoes at the airport security check-in makes my flight any safer.

said by scrummie02:

The things you listed benefit society in some way, obstructed freedom of speech or accessing dissenting ideas ...

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.

said by scrummie02:

Still, the comparisons you made are bunk. ... Comparing this interference with building codes and the FDA is a non sequitur and you know it.

said by scrummie02:

Not allowing access to ideas, not matter how vile, opens up the door for the government to ban other sites or outlets it deems inappropriate.

said by scrummie02:

riots aren't something that starts out as a riot, they usually start out as protests which are legal. Riots become a problem because you start infringing on other peoples rights, so that point has no validation.

said by scrummie02:

It doesn't matter if people like those things or not, they are put there and serve a benefit. Blocking sites does not.

said by scrummie02:

You can't speak for the victims of the 7/7 disaster because you weren't there. I am willing to bet most if all wouldn't want those sites blocked. My assumption is just as good as yours since you haven't been in the scenario.

said by scrummie02:

Rioting is already illegal,

said by scrummie02:

the constitution doesn't guarantee a right not to be offended, it does however grant a right to free speech.

said by scrummie02:

There is people who would benefit from shutting down all dissenting discourse as well?

said by scrummie02:

I am aware the Cons. doesn't grant free speech to foreigners, please re-read where I stated that.

said by scrummie02:

The slippery slope argument does apply because it could happened (or couldn't). Remember, taking of freedom won't happen in one swoop, it will take time.

said by scrummie02:

Inciting a riot would be illegal because once again, riots will affect other people and their property. Putting hateful things on a website does not other than the person get's offended or their feelings hurt.

said by scrummie02:

There is Jihadi sites? Fine, find them and shut them down, but blocking access of the citizens is wrong in my opinion.

said by scrummie02:

If the government deems it necessary to ban Jihadi websites what could be next (internet gambling for example).

said by amigo_boy:

Why should a web site urging bombings, etc., be qualitatively different?

said by jmn1207:

Aren't there rules in place regarding threats over the internet? ... We can work with other nations to remove such content in the same way that copyrighted material is handled.

said by jmn1207:

Checks and balances must be employed or nothing will be able to prevent one group from deciding that their views are best and all others are a threat to our security?

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).

said by jmn1207:

Regulation of this ilk makes a lot of sense.

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.

said by jmn1207:

Traffic citations generate far too much 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,

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.

said by jmn1207:

I would have added an "almost" in there someplace.

said by jmn1207:

If it incites a riot and people and property are damaged, then enforce those laws that already exist.

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...

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.

said by jmn1207:

Those are fair, agreed-upon solutions that have real benefits to society when we adhere to these regulations.

said by amigo_boy:

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.

said by »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_o···Function :

The Articles supported the Congressional direction of the Continental Army, and allowed the 13 states to present a unified front when dealing with the European powers. But as a tool to build a centralized war-making government, they were largely a failure. Under the articles Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. There was a requirement for unanimous approval before any modifications could be made to the Articles.

Congress was denied the power of taxation: it could only request money from the states. The states did not generally comply with the requests in full, leaving the confederation chronically short of funds. The states and the national congress had both incurred debts during the war, and how to pay the debts became a major issue. Some states paid off their debts; however, the centralizers favored federal assumption of states' debts.

said by Jason Levine:

Just a bit of history to clarify the move from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. The founding fathers were fearful of a strong federal government, however, the federal government under the Articles of Confederation was too weak.

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.

said by Jason Levine:

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.

said by flyingjoey :

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.”

said by Jason Levine:

I wasn't arguing that the MANY are always wrong, but that we need to be careful when making rules based on what the MANY want.

said by Jason Levine:

By doing so, we might wind up trampling on the rights of the FEW.