 La LunaSurvived AshrafulPremium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
kudos:3
 ·Vonage
 ·Optimum Online
| reply to viperpa33s
Re: Free speech to incitie violence said by viperpa33s:Instead of filtering, why don't they just arrest the extremists for inciting violence? Free speech is one thing but someone who encites others to commit violence and then calls it free speech is another. These blatant jihadist sites are not hosted within the UK by Brits, how are they supposed to arrest them?
However, they are visited by the population of radical Islamists that live just under the radar (or so they think) in the UK, or maybe even young Muslims who haven't quite stepped over the line yet but are being pushed to do so.
Can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with these specific sites being blocked unless someone IS a radical jihadist, they sure aren't secretive about their purpose or agenda.
--
10,367 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11~~TEAM DISCOVERY
Can't feel you anymore, don't need you anymore, don't believe you anymore, I don't need you anymore
|
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| I'd be interested in looking at some, always good to see how your enemy thinks. If you haven't read the North Korean official online newspaper, you really should, its hilarious: »www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm
I wouldn't install that DLL though. |
|
 CuchulainnThe Roar of the Masses Could be Farts
join:2000-11-09
Chevy Chase, MD | reply to La Luna
said by La Luna 
Can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with these specific sites being blocked unless someone IS a radical jihadist, they sure aren't secretive about their purpose or agenda.[/BQUOTE :You don't have a problem with blocking LEGAL content? These sites are not illegal. Offensive? Hell yes! Distasteful? Fo' Sho!! Illegal? Mmmm...no. Blocking information you don't like is undemocratic, totalitarian and shockingly simple-minded. Oh, and BTW - tell me which Republican rocket scientist came up with that "statistic" in your posting tag? --
Getting your news from Bill O'Reilly is like getting your nutrition from deep-fried Ding Dongs.
|
|
|
|
| reply to La Luna
said by La Luna:Can't imagine why anyone would have a problem with these specific sites being blocked unless someone IS a radical jihadist, they sure aren't secretive about their purpose or agenda. There are two problems with this. The first one is who decides what constitutes a "Radical Islamic" website? If a Muslim friend of mine ran a "Muslim Chat" forum site and someone started making Radical Islamic-style posts, would his site be blocked? Would linking to a Radical Islamic site be grounds for blocking? What about linking to a site that linked to a site with Radical Islamic content? Who looks over the blocking committee's shoulders to make sure that they aren't blocking moderate Islamic (non-Radical) websites?
The second problem is the slippery slope. Yesterday it was child porn. Today it's Radical Islamic content. Tomorrow it's "White Power" sites. Next week comes the sites that promote massive (peaceful) protests against the War in Iraq. The week after that comes the block on "radical" dissenting political opinions. (Might not be violent, but just outside the norm enough to get blocked.) Perhaps the anti-evolution crowd gets enough votes together to get anti-Intelligent Design sites banned.
Over time more and more content is blocked until the you have another Great Firewall of China in place. Meanwhile, the blocking committee gets more and more power and might even start blocking content on their own. (See the first fear.)
It's not that people are *in favor of* Radical Islam and Child Pornography. It's that they see that those topics are the thin side of a wedge being pushed into your freedom of speech.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar. Shooting For A Cause
Jason's Toolbox | PCQandA.com |
|
