rileyjam514There You Go Again...
join:2005-06-26
Kearny, NJ | Much as I disapprove... ...of the antics of the 4Chan community, blocking them outright seems to be a bad idea. You (Verizon) don't go after one site (4Chan), you go after whomever is attacking your network (and no, I don't believe for a second the admins on 4Chan would be stupid enough to launch DDoS attacks on Verizon).
I say it's a bad idea because it's a slippery slope into blocking whomever you want for whatever contrived reason you can muster. Yes, it's a Wild West Saloon where everyone's high on glue, naked and pretty much destroying everything in sight with the care of a baby with a bazooka, but, this is America. Freedom of speech, even if irresponsible and disturbing, is the very first right we are all granted in the Bill of Rights. It doesn't matter what we want to say or where or how we want to say it - we all have the right to say it.
Do I like anything that goes on at 4Chan or any of the linked or subsidiary sites (like Encyclopedia Dramatica)? Absolutely not, but I'll defend their right to say it with every drop of blood I have.
Verizon's making a very big mistake by blocking them, and if it remains in place it's setting a very bad precedent. What's stopping them, if they keep this in place, from blocking a site they don't agree with (Consumerist or BBR, or perhaps something with a more political theme such as RedState)?
--
Abortion is murder, Reagan was a hero, Clinton was a sleazeball, Iraq is much better off without Saddam, and the telcos are not trustworthy with American tax dollars. There! I've managed to offend a significant portion of BBR! |
|
| Yup, not like you're going to stop sites like that from appearing anyway. Like a hydra. |
|
 MIRV
join:2000-12-01
Louisville, KY | reply to rileyjam514
My sentiments exactly. 4chan's definitely got some creepy bizarre stuff, but it's also made me laugh as well. Carriers have no business blocking content. I just want a dumb pipe thank you.
--
Bah weep grana weep ninny bon
|
|
 MashikiBalking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
 ·Bright House
·TekSavvy Cable
| No dumb pipe for you. AT&T along with some of the posters in this thread feel that they should govern what you can and can't see.
Therefore those wishing and encouraging this ban, I want to be a crow of terror. I shall perch upon your shoulder, waiting for you to do things then block you from it. Afterall morality crows shouldn't be see doing things like eating, or see the uncleanliness of ankles.
--
The Art of War
"Excessive law is no law." - Cicero
The man who fed the world |
|
|
|
| reply to rileyjam514
I wouldn't make any claims about 'freedom of speach' concerning Verizon's actions. The admendment only applied to the government, not private entities (corporations, forums, etc.). In some sense, version censoring 4chan is no different that a mod deleting this post. They set the rules for their domain/area of control.
There is also a large asterik next to that 'freedom of speech' too, that limits: profanity, based on age (supposedly the supreme court declared that high schoolers can't have complete freedom of speech), racial comments, saying particular phrases in some locations (false bomb/fire scares in large crowded area), etc. |
|
rileyjam514There You Go Again...
join:2005-06-26
Kearny, NJ
2 edits | said by cornelius785:I wouldn't make any claims about 'freedom of speach' concerning Verizon's actions. The admendment only applied to the government, not private entities (corporations, forums, etc.). In some sense, version censoring 4chan is no different that a mod deleting this post. They set the rules for their domain/area of control. There is also a large asterik next to that 'freedom of speech' too, that limits: profanity, based on age (supposedly the supreme court declared that high schoolers can't have complete freedom of speech), racial comments, saying particular phrases in some locations (false bomb/fire scares in large crowded area), etc.
You're missing the point - the First Amendment means that no one, public or private, can censor language or prevent its publication. By disallowing access to 4Chan, even if only for cellular customers, that's exactly what Verizon is doing.
Yes, there are limits, set by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't mean Verizon gets to take ALL of 4Chan and toss it out the window. As I said, it would throw things down a very slippery slope that would endanger free speech on the internet - 4Chan today, DailyKos or RedState or the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal tomorrow. Risk for one today is risk for everyone tomorrow.
(edited to put comment in - did not include comment last time)
--
Abortion is murder, Reagan was a hero, Clinton was a sleazeball, Iraq is much better off without Saddam, and the telcos are not trustworthy with American tax dollars. There! I've managed to offend a significant portion of BBR! |
|
 VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | reply to rileyjam514
If there are people meeting at a site to encourage these types of attacks, I applaud the companies for blocking them.
I am not saying they should block sites where 1-2 people mention this....but if communities at sites are doing such a thing, why not block it? And if they find other sites doing the same thing...block them too. |
|
 sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1
·RoadRunner Cable
| But where does it end? Today, 4chan, tomorrow, redtube, next week, China?
The internet needs to remain open, neutral, and unregulated except to insure it remains unregulated.
--
In dadkins' memory, Think outside the Fox... |
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| reply to Van
said by Van:If there are people meeting at a site to encourage these types of attacks, I applaud the companies for blocking them. I am not saying they should block sites where 1-2 people mention this....but if communities at sites are doing such a thing, why not block it? And if they find other sites doing the same thing...block them too. How about cities, towns, suburbs, neighborhoods? If communities within a city or neighborhood are encouraging anything illegal, how about barricading the city and allowing no one in or out?
How about corporations? |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to rileyjam514
said by rileyjam514:the First Amendment means that no one, public or private, can censor language or prevent its publication. Correction: the First Amendment means that no one, public or private, can censor language or prevent its publication.
However, other laws and customs may also mean that ISPs cannot, either. However, again, some of them believe that their own 1st Amendment rights allow them to block speech (I disagree, however).
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- District of Columbia -- KJ7RL
Tweet! Tweet! -- »twitter.com/funchords |
|
rileyjam514There You Go Again...
join:2005-06-26
Kearny, NJ | Apologies for the mixup on my part - I do remember my civics classes, just had a brainfart.
I agree - these companies may just believe they're enforcing their own First Amendment rights, but in matters such as these, to maliciously block a site like 4Chan, is asking for trouble, both in the political and policy sense, and in the historical sense (simple google searches for "pissing off 4Chan" would help).
--
Abortion is murder, Reagan was a hero, Clinton was a sleazeball, Iraq is much better off without Saddam, and the telcos are not trustworthy with American tax dollars. There! I've managed to offend a significant portion of BBR! |
|
VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | reply to fatness
said by fatness:said by Van:If there are people meeting at a site to encourage these types of attacks, I applaud the companies for blocking them. I am not saying they should block sites where 1-2 people mention this....but if communities at sites are doing such a thing, why not block it? And if they find other sites doing the same thing...block them too. How about cities, towns, suburbs, neighborhoods? If communities within a city or neighborhood are encouraging anything illegal, how about barricading the city and allowing no one in or out? How about corporations? If people were meeting in a house in a city to discuss attacks on the city, yes....I could see the city doing something to block that type of action whether arrested them or raiding that house
Now, in terms of the internet response....blocking that site is a proper response.
Again, i am not saying simply because a web-site has a few posters discussing it that it should be blocked....but when an actual community is getting together to coordinate such attacks.
When your site becomes the breeding ground for such actions, you should prepare yourself to be beaten down by those being hurt by them. |
|
VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | reply to sivran
said by sivran:The internet needs to remain open, neutral, and unregulated except to insure it remains unregulated. The Internet will never be open for anything. There are rules.
Someone can't be offering "Free Cocaine" and expect the authorities to not come knocking on their door eventually |
|
 Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23
·Cox HSI
| reply to funchords
What statute says an ISP can't block a particular website? Other than a potential antitrust action if the blocked or interfered with a competitor, I can't think of any law that prevents Verizon from blocking anyone they wanted.
Could customers end up canceling? Sure. Could it mean bad PR? Sure. But I don't think it's illegal. |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | reply to fatness
I would agree. Any city leaders that advocate criminal behavior should be ousted, fined and/or arrested.
Any corporation that advocates criminal activity should be heavily fined and those officers responsible sent to a FPMITAP. |
|
fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13 Host:
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| The point I was trying to make is that those things are not going to happen, and everyone knows it. A government floating the idea of barricading off a neighborhood due to talk among a few of its members would be met with anger and ridicule, rightfully so. Yet it's the same idea as the one postulated, just put in a different setting.
--
"I cannot teach him. The boy has no pants." |
|
Z80APremium
join:2009-11-23 | So long as VZ's money flows to Congress they can do anything they want. |
|
fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13 Host:
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| reply to Z80A
said by Z80A:What statute says an ISP can't block a particular website? »voices.washingtonpost.com/postte···ere.html
quote:
If true, the move would violate guidelines by the Federal Communications Commission that prohibit Internet service providers such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast from shutting down Web sites for their subscribers. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is crafting controversial regulations that would make those principles stronger and allow the agency to punish companies that don't treat all content equally on the Web.
--
"I cannot teach him. The boy has no pants." |
|
VanPremium
join:2009-07-08
New Orleans, LA | reply to fatness
If it were just a few members, I would agree.
If it is a significant portion of the city (or site), I don't agree. People would (and should) take action
So I guess our difference in opinion comes to how much of a site constitutes enough to warrant this block.... |
|
fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:13 Host:
Bright House Netwo..
Earthlink DSL
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
| Well any site that allows both you and me to post freely should be shut down for sure. 
--
"I cannot teach him. The boy has no pants." |
|
