oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to Camelot One
Re: Telus within their rights
"Scares the hell" out of you? A private enterprise filtering a website showing it's employees in such a way and situation that harm may come to them? This scares the hell out of you?
All I can say is wow. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by oliphant  :"Scares the hell" out of you? A private enterprise filtering a website showing it's employees in such a way and situation that harm may come to them? This scares the hell out of you? All I can say is wow. Hey, at least make an honest argument. Telus isn't doing this for employees' safety, they're doing it to deny access to information that may be harmful to the company. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | said by vpoko :said by oliphant :"Scares the hell" out of you? A private enterprise filtering a website showing it's employees in such a way and situation that harm may come to them? This scares the hell out of you? All I can say is wow. Hey, at least make an honest argument. Telus isn't doing this for employees' safety, they're doing it to deny access to information that may be harmful to the company. It's irrelevant. The fact that this would "scare the hell" out of anyone is simply amazing. Masked gunmen entering your home in the middle of the night would scare the hell out of someone. Being on a plane as it goes down in flames would scare the hell out of someone. A private company blocking a single site shouldn't scare anyone. I'm surprised someone so fragile would be able to function normally in society.
People simply over-dramatize these things to the point people just laugh rather than listen to the genuine concern.
This isn't the end of the world. This isn't even a 'slippery slope'. You think it's lame that they blocked a union site...then sure, it's lame. But that it would "scare" someone is simply ludicrous. |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| The potential harm of censorship scares a lot of people.It scared our forefathers enough to write the first amendment to the constitution.I do not know what protections Canadians have on free speech but if this ever happens here I hope there are legal avenues to redress the issue. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
4 edits | Read the 1st Amendment again please. The 1st Amendment only applies to Government as in "Congress shall make no law..."
Private companies can "censor" whoever they want so long as it doesn't violate the anti-trust or Civil Rights act or similar Federal or State laws. It's (as in the service is) their property, they can determine how it's run. You as a subscriber have only ONE choice. To subscribe or not to subscribe. Every other choice belongs to the company as it should.
It's not censorship but rather their own private property rights they are exercising when blocking a site. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
The potential harm of censorship scares a lot of people.It scared our forefathers enough to write the first amendment to the constitution.I do not know what protections Canadians have on free speech but if this ever happens here I hope there are legal avenues to redress the issue.
The first amemndment (the entire bill of rights actually) only applies to the government. Private companies are free to censor as long as they aren't violating a specific statute.
I am arguing against the wisdom of the policy rather than its legal basis. |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com | reply to oliphant
My point was that they thought it was important enough to make it an amendment. Not that the amendment applies. My original statement stands. Censorship is bad no matter who is doing it. |
|
bamboox
join:2000-12-15
Renton, WA | said by Orwell1984:
Censorship is bad no matter who is doing it.
Is all censorship bad? Is censoring child porn bad? Is it bad if I prevent my child from view pornography? |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
My point was that they thought it was important enough to make it an amendment. Not that the amendment applies. My original statement stands. Censorship is bad no matter who is doing it.
In your opinion maybe but the Founders also saw personal property rights important too. |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| reply to bamboox
If you limit what your child sees then that is good parenting.If you try to limit what my child sees then you are a censor.I won't argue the merits of censoring child porn it is too emotional of an issue, but it is already being used to further harass legal adult porn sites. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Good. Private individuals or companies exercising their Constitutionally granted private property rights is a great thing. |
|
bamboox
join:2000-12-15
Renton, WA
1 edit | reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
If you limit what your child sees then that is good parenting.
So you're saying censorship can be good in this one case? |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com | No, I am saying being a good parent is not censorship. |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| reply to oliphant
But the information being censored is not Telus's property.This is not like a newspaper deciding editorial policies.This is a company interfering with the ability of one group to express an opinion and another group to listen.The network may belong to Telus but the information carried on does not. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by Orwell1984:
But the information being censored is not Telus's property.This is not like a newspaper deciding editorial policies.This is a company interfering with the ability of one group to express an opinion and another group to listen.The network may belong to Telus but the information carried on does not.
I agree, but the proper way to enforce this would be to convince the other backbone providers to revoke backbone access to ISP's who do not provide content-neutral access to the network. Hell, what if the union site is making money off of banner ads and Telus is costing the union (who is a customer of another ISP) ad-revenue. Of course in areas where there is no competition (a monopoly or duopoly) the government might have an interest in forcing ISP's to comply, but I think that the free market IS equipped to handle this kind of problem where a free-market exists. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
But the information being censored is not Telus's property.This is not like a newspaper deciding editorial policies.This is a company interfering with the ability of one group to express an opinion and another group to listen.The network may belong to Telus but the information carried on does not.
They own the service as such they determine which data crosses their privately owned service. In addition you don't subscribe to the data, only the service. Thus your only choice is to subscribe to the service or not. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
But the information being censored is not Telus's property.This is not like a newspaper deciding editorial policies.This is a company interfering with the ability of one group to express an opinion and another group to listen.The network may belong to Telus but the information carried on does not.
So what. Both groups are private. Telus as a private enterprise has no obligation to aid another private group in promoting whatever their message is.
If that group wants to get out their message, let them go stand on a street corner. Let them go buy advertising space on radio or TV. Or better yet let them start their own ISP.
Telus in no way shape or form has the obligation to provide the ability of any group to express their opinion or to allow any other group to listen.
The "listener" has only 1 choice. To subscribe or not to subscribe. EVERY other decision belongs to the company or individual that owns the service. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA | Obviously this would be governed by their contract, but do you think that other backbone providers might have a reason to be pissed? Generally the backbones are supposed to provide unfetered access to each other. |
|
guitarzan
Premium
join:2004-05-04
Skytop, PA
 ·epix
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :"Scares the hell" out of you? A private enterprise filtering a website showing it's employees in such a way and situation that harm may come to them? This scares the hell out of you? All I can say is wow. I agree with Oli.Private enterprise filtering a website is within their bounds.Aww one site,pfft get a grip.They're people that work in tech support and CS that the entire web is neutered down to the bone.The only websites allowed is company approved sites.Techs who get around the filters,when they get caught they're history.Security escorts them from the building.What happened I ask.9x out of 10 they get fired for browsin' the web lol.
--
Honk if you've never seen an uzi fired from a car window |
|
ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| reply to oliphant
said by oliphant :said by Orwell1984:
But the information being censored is not Telus's property.This is not like a newspaper deciding editorial policies.This is a company interfering with the ability of one group to express an opinion and another group to listen.The network may belong to Telus but the information carried on does not.
They own the service as such they determine which data crosses their privately owned service. In addition you don't subscribe to the data, only the service. Thus your only choice is to subscribe to the service or not. Accepting your argument would mean the telephone company should have the right to censor what can be said over the phone. SBC, and the other Telcos, could cut off service to the CWA, or to other customers who were CWA members, or CWA staff, or any other entity, if they wanted to prevent them from promulgating or disseminating information amongst themselves, or to their membership during times of labor negotiations/strikes. In fact, accepting your argument means that SBC and the Telcos could do it for any reason, to anyone, any time they felt it in their interest.
Simply stunning! |
|
