how-to block ads
|
-
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| reply to ISurfTooMuch
Re: Whining
said by ISurfTooMuch  :I don't think you are describing obscene content. Obscenity, on its face, is illegal, but content has to be judged by the Miller test in order to be deemed obscene. Normal, everyday porn does not fall into that category. And I didn't mention it, but yes, you are right, filters make mistakes. ........cut And the real point is (that many forget in pursuing their agendas), it is your choice to use it or to go somewhere else. If it does not get close to breaking even on the budget because of the restrictions you mention, then the money bags in congress will be more than happy to pull the money to give to their favorite charity, themselves.
I myself would probably not use it. But there are many who would jump at it. Screw them? or give them a chance? All philosophy aside, at least it is something the fat cats in what we call the incumbents are dragging their feet on, so maybe it will help a large class of people a bit. You and I probably will laugh at the real throughput, but it is better than dial up in many areas (personally I think the physics might be flawed, depending on the frequency band it ends up in).
I vote give it a shot and see where it goes, it is more valuable than bailing out the rich folk who made bad investment decisions in worthless paper (those who made wise decisions will not see anything and the super poor who are trapped in the crash will get nothing but the boot).
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| reply to RayW
I don't think you are describing obscene content. Obscenity, on its face, is illegal, but content has to be judged by the Miller test in order to be deemed obscene. Normal, everyday porn does not fall into that category.
And I didn't mention it, but yes, you are right, filters make mistakes. So what is someone supposed to do when these filters block content they aren't supposed to block, such as a site discussing rape, breast cancer, or polirics? And exactly how far do we filter? Violence? Hate speech? Political extremists? Those advocating the relaxation of drug laws? Pro-gun sites? Anti-abortion sites that show dead fetuses? Sites discussing rape? Sites discussing sex education that show body parts? Sites advocating against the use of filters? Those have been blocked by filters in the past. Sites discussing homosexuality? Sites discussing breast cancer? They've also been blocked. Al-Jazeera's site? They support terrorists, right, or are they a news channel? Fox News? Some folks don't consider what they show as news any more than what Al-Jazeera shows. Cults? Who decides what is and isn't a cult, anyway? What about the Web site for the YFZ group, if they have one? They advocated child marriage, didn't they? Well, the state of Texas said so, but the courts disagreed. Sites depicting animal cruelty? As defined by who? PETA certainly has a broader definition than the ASPCA, but they believe in their definition just as fervently. Sites promoting xenophobia? As defined by whom? What if the government in office decides that opposition to global trade agreements is a form of xenophobia?
How far, exactly, do we go, and who gets to make that decision? What if I disagree with a particular site being blocked or not blocked? Who decides, and what if someone disagrees with that decision? | |
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| reply to ISurfTooMuch
said by ISurfTooMuch :It doesn't matter whether the government runs it or not; they're offering up the spectrum for it. They're basically saying, "If you want the spectrum to build this, then you have to filter out protected speech." The only thing the government can ban is obscenity. Even in broadcasting, there is a safe harbor period for indecent content. And considering that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Internet has more First Amendment protections than broadcasting, I'm betting that the courts will take a dim view of this scheme. And in this case, even banning "obscenity" is too much for some folks, they want to cuss and watch the porn everywhere. Please note, this is a "safe haven" for the non obscenity groups, not the other way around. The obscenity oriented people have other areas that are available for their use, including most other services, even libraries have a section of computers that are open so that lame folks can get their jollies. Besides, blocking porn will have a beneficial affect on the link, less downloads to clog the system.
And yes, I agree that filters are not very discriminating, my weather station site is tagged as porn by many of them, and the true porn pushers are making changes as fast (or faster) as the blockers do.
I am waiting for the so called "Free Speech" types to come down on the wired providers that provide the same service and not allow the case to be bought off. So much for "Free Speech". A friend of mine who moonlights on one of the Church (one of the Baptist ones, I think) ISPs here in Utah said they had that happen. Some yo-yo threatened to sue because he could not get to a site that was deemed obscene by the group. They paid him off.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
ISurfTooMuch
join:2007-04-23
Tuscaloosa, AL
| reply to RayW
It doesn't matter whether the government runs it or not; they're offering up the spectrum for it. They're basically saying, "If you want the spectrum to build this, then you have to filter out protected speech."
The only thing the government can ban is obscenity. Even in broadcasting, there is a safe harbor period for indecent content. And considering that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the Internet has more First Amendment protections than broadcasting, I'm betting that the courts will take a dim view of this scheme. | |
|
