TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
 ·Comcast
|  Censorship;but logical internet rules same as newspaper rule
It is still censorship. But it is a logical extension of rules for newspapers, etc. That the internet should follow the same publishing rules as newspapers, TV, & radio makes perfect sense. The internet shouldn't get special dispensation from the rules that other forms of communication follow.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
edit:
April 25th, @06:30PM
| quote:
That the internet should follow the same publishing rules as newspapers, TV, & radio makes perfect sense.
It makes "perfect sense" to take the rules governing a dying, regional, uni-directional transmission medium and expand it to cover a global, two way, largely uncontrollable communications medium where anybody can be a publisher? Honestly do you post just to post and advertise your blog, or do you post to say something substantive? |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | Ouch! |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to TK Junk Mail
Censorship is not needed or wanted.
TV and Radio are 'broadcast' to the masses and, for the most part you can still watch uncensored material... Utah may beg to differ.
Is there a reason why you may think that censorship in required ? Unlike billboards, TV, radio and newspaper that are broadcast to the public (i.e. I don't need to pay anything to get it), Internet requires searching. There are tools to censor out there if needed at the personal level.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| reply to en102
Re: Censorship;but logical internet rules same as newspaper rule
Let me correct you by saying...said by en102  :Censorship is not needed or wanted. PAID TV and Radio are 'broadcast' to the masses and, for the most part you can still watch uncensored material... You can also do the research and see that as more and more uncensored material has been broadcasted crime rates increased, teen sex, and teens having babies has increased. Pretty much the entire moral fabric this country was founded on has declined with the introduction of "uncensored material".
You can say it is poor parenting and for the most part I would agree, however, how you are brought up greatly effects how you behave and how you let your children behave. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·DSL EXTREME
| There is PAID TV ... and there's BROADCAST TV
I do believe that there is a place for censorship. There is also a place for free speech. Who is going to judge what should be censored. If I speak out against a corporation or public official where censorship exists, I will never be heard.
In many european countries, nudists beaches exist, yet they don't appear to have the same 'moral' issues with sex, teen pregnancies or high crimes. I do agree that many of this is due to poor parenting and general state of this country, not censorship.
Listen to 'the professor'
»www.blowmeuptom.com/
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
edit:
April 25th, @08:12PM
| reply to Karl Bode
It's good to have different opinions, it would be very boring having people who agree with everything you post.
I don't agree with censorship of the internet, but I respect other peoples opinions and contributions.
That was a bit harsh ...
Here's a little story: One time I took a college course on internet security. The teacher runs his own computer security company.
On one of his lectures, he put out a question to the class after on how the internet was going to spawn the next Hitler cult or worse.
After I disagreed with that premise (pointing out that the contributions to society outweigh the potential detriment), I noticed my grades started going down and the teacher wouldn't even talk to me anymore except to nod or grumble.
I learned that it pays to be a YES man, but I refuse to do that ...
--
There is no greater sign of a general decay of virtue in a nation, than a want of zeal in its inhabitants for the good of their country. ~ Joseph Addison |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | reply to TK Junk Mail
I think I kind of actually agree with you somewhat on this....Peace
--
BlooMe |
|
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28 | reply to TK Junk Mail
You can say something like that and still have U.S. flag in your avatar? |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to gaforces
said by gaforces :It's good to have different opinions, it would be very boring having people who agree with everything you post. I don't agree with censorship of the internet, but I respect other peoples opinions and contributions. That was a bit harsh ... Harsh? Really?...Then you explain his unwavering support of antihumanitarian, pro-corporate statist, "all oligarchy, all the time" viewpoints, conveniently summarized and represented by his current choice of inflamatory authoritarian elitist icon; the police squad car. To say nothing of his expressed opinion that while it may be censorship, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that...
I'm sure you won't mind if I beg to differ... |
|
Nightshade
Beware the Blue Rabbit
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
edit:
April 26th, @02:07AM
| reply to TK Junk Mail
How can you imply the same rules on a medium where anyone can publish what they want versus a medium where the publishing standards are made by a few who are trained in the media industry?
Besides the internet is not specifically used for media communication, but it is also used for data transfers, teleconferencing, a whole variety of uses than just a media outlet. So not only is your logical extension illogical, it won't even work because of the varied uses of the internet.
Now with that said I don't believe that extremism shouldn't be censored, in fact it should be exposed everyday to everyone so that people can be aware of extremism and the harm that it can cause. Just because something is silenced to the masses doesn't mean it goes away. If there is one thing extremism loves more than anything, it's ignorance. Extremism preys on ignorance like a lioness stalking a gazelle.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to gaforces
said by gaforces :...I don't agree with censorship of the internet, but I respect other peoples opinions and contributions. That was a bit harsh ... Well here is a minor little story of how his point of view leads to some detrimental consequences for the "protected" masses when subject to authoritarian "fiddling" with the sources of information.
You can look up alternate videos concerning the subject of GE/GMO, and I suggest you do, because you won't find these videos where they were linked to at 10:30 p.m. last night, as they were gone, wiped-out, obliterated a short time thereafter. The problem described therein has dire consequences for humankind, not that Monsanto, or its shareholders, presently give a damn.
So does the consolidation of media companies, and growing support for conformity and censorship in general, along with the limitation of access to primary sources of information and/or the censorship and/or total elimination of "unsanctioned", or "unblessed" information. The pro-censorship viewpoint of T.K Junk Mail, and others, just brings us closer to a totalitarian state...luckily, we'll be ignorant of its arrival, much like fish who cannot perceive the water which surrounds them, as if it were the natural state of things... |
|
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
| reply to ross
Re: Censorship;but logical internet rules same as newspaper rule
So it would be OK to censor him then aye? Cause thats what you and Karl seem to be advocating. You'all are basically telling him to STFU with his POV that opposes yours.
--
There is no greater sign of a general decay of virtue in a nation, than a want of zeal in its inhabitants for the good of their country. ~ Joseph Addison |
|
Rogue Wolf
Came To Bury Caesar, Not To Praise Him
join:2003-08-12
Saratoga Springs, NY
| reply to TK Junk Mail
I am having trouble coming up with words that can adequately describe just how abjectly wrong you are on this subject. Newspapers, television and radio are MEDIA- they are seen as purveyors of news and facts, and are regulated as such (And even this is within restrictions- when was the last time you saw the Weekly World News shut down for saying Hillary Clinton adopted a space-alien child?) The Internet as a whole- forums such as this one, personal websites owned by individuals, etc.- is NOT the media. It is more of a Town Green, where people can speak out and trade their thoughts and ideas freely. How would you like it if the cops stood around the water coolers, lunch tables and smoking spots of America to ensure that no "extremist ideas" were exchanged?
"The principle of free thought is not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought we hate." US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in United States v. Schwimmer (1929).
--
I have learned to ignore such naysayers, when... quelling... them... hm?... was out of the question. |
|
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ
 ·Sprint Broadband D..
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :It is still censorship. But it is a logical extension of rules for newspapers, etc. That the internet should follow the same publishing rules as newspapers, TV, & radio makes perfect sense. The internet shouldn't get special dispensation from the rules that other forms of communication follow. You mean like Rusty Limbaugh's recent on-air call for riots at the Dem Convention? Those kinds of rules and standards?
I bring this up because I am a big and proud ol' Bleeding Heart Librul and I don't know one single other person on the left(and I know a bunch) who is as nucking futs as that. No sane person wants violence in the streets. The effects on the fragile economy, alone, would be disastrous.
Of course, nothing will happen to the Ambulatory Oxycontin Filter. He's a made man. A solid citizen. One of the boys. Pillar of the community. Moral exemplar to us all.
So I guess these "standards" would only apply to us one-fodder-units who have displayed the temerity and poor taste to speak up against the reigning power structure? At least the OFU's who would find enticing, for whatever reason, the thought of having the DHS take up residence in their lower intestine, through the use of a 24ft extension ladder and a big ol' battering ram. But guys like Rusty...they never get the ladder or the ram. Because they are "our betters". |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to gaforces
said by gaforces :So it would be OK to censor him then aye? Cause thats what you and Karl seem to be advocating. You'all are basically telling him to STFU with his POV that opposes yours. I never suggested censoring him. However, I don't believe he should go unchallenged either. |
|
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to TK Junk Mail
said by TK Junk Mail :It is still censorship. But it is a logical extension of rules for newspapers, etc. That the internet should follow the same publishing rules as newspapers, TV, & radio makes perfect sense. The internet shouldn't get special dispensation from the rules that other forms of communication follow.
Wow, you've managed to create a diversion from the issue in such in a clever way that it has taken about a dozen posts for someone to explain the fallacy.
If by "rules for newspapers, etc." you mean the rules they voluntarily follow in deciding what to publish, then of course this is also suitable for internet publishers - but "the internet" is not a publisher. The publishers are the individuals and organizations that run websites or post on blogs or forums.
If by "rules for newspapers, etc." you mean the laws that place outer limits on freedom of expression, then again, the same laws should apply for internet publishers. But again, the publishers are the individuals and organizations that put information online - not the medium in which they publish. The pre-internet rules apply to the parties who put words on paper (equivalent to bloggers, forum posters), not to the mechanical details of printing and delivering papers (equivalent to "the internet").
Last but not least, your post is actually off topic, because the issue was about ISPs, not publishers. If we're going to make an analogy with pre-internet publishing, the ISP is like the company that supplies paper, ink and printing-press to a newspaper. Imagine if there were only a few such companies and every would-be publisher of a book or newspaper had little choice of where to get the supplies - would it be right to tolerate a situation where these sellers of goods and services dictated what everyone else was allowed to publish? That is the issue in this front page item. |
|
