 |  | 
Karl
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
edit:
April 25th, @06:30PM
| Re: Censorship;but logical internet rules same as newspaper rule 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 | Re: Censorship;but logical internet rules same as newspaper rule Ouch! | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
 ·Cruzio Internet
edit:
April 25th, @08:12PM
| Re: Censorship;but logical internet rules same as newspaper rule 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 | |
| | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Censorship;but logical internet rules same as newspaper rule 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... | |
| | | | |
gaforces
United We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
·Cruzio Internet
| 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 | |
| | | | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Censorship;but logical internet rules same as newspaper rule 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. | |
| | | | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| 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... | |
| | | | | | | | Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| 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
| Re: Censorship;but logical internet rules same as newspaper rule 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 | |
| | | | fuziwuzi
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
 ·Comcast
| said by Skippy25 :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". If you'd really done any research you'd know you just posited a Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. | |
| | | | 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | I think I kind of actually agree with you somewhat on this....Peace
--
BlooMe | |
| | 
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28 | You can say something like that and still have U.S. flag in your avatar? | |
| | 
Nightshade
Beware the Blue Rabbit
Premium
join:2002-05-26
Salem, OR
edit:
April 26th, @02:07AM
| 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 | |
| | 
Rogue Wolf
Is Not One To Squander His Investments
join:2003-08-12
Saratoga Springs, NY
| 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..
| 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". | |
| | 
swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
·RoadRunner Cable
| 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. | |
| | fuziwuzi
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA | Please say "Hello" to Dear Leader for us when you see him next.  | |
| Ulmo
join:2005-09-22
San Jose, CA
·Comcast
·SONIC.NET
| Muslimism vs. other religions There can already be a case made that we need to adjust our religion laws in USA that cause us to treat all religons similarly. Muslimism, not yet reformed as most other religions have been, is too violent, and needs to be government-regulated more than the other religions.
I believe that a very very careful, explicit, deliberate, intentional and specific decision against certain very specific threats, with a LOT of overchecking, can be used in times of relative emergency. However, I also believe that the path to achieving that is fraught with dangerous loop holes along the way, and that the utmost of mistrust of government process must be considered at every angle, moment, point, level, etc., in any such process. I absolutely implore all paranoid people to include in their monitoring and fighting such acts done in order to stop things such as violent muslimism, while still leaving room for legitimate anti-muslimism and the stopping of muslimism that must be done, as an example.
This isn't a topic for absolutists and idiots, to be sure. | |
| | ross
join:2000-08-16
·Digizip
| Re: Muslimism vs. other religions said by Ulmo :...Muslimism, not yet reformed as most other religions have been, is too violent, and needs to be government-regulated... I believe that a very very careful, explicit, deliberate, intentional and specific decision against certain very specific threats... I absolutely implore all paranoid people to include in their monitoring and fighting such acts done in order to stop things such as violent muslimism, while still leaving room for legitimate anti-muslimism and the stopping of muslimism that must be done... This isn't a topic for absolutists and idiots, to be sure. Wow! | |
| | | 
lg75
join:2003-01-31
Bronx, NY
·Optimum Online
| Re: Muslimism vs. other religions I will tell you one thing. Personally, I'm a non-believer and in my opinion all religions are evil. However, this guy is a totally ignorant to say that Islam is violent. Islam isn't violent. The idiots the make the bombs and kill people, but hide behind Islam are violent.
Honestly, the government has no place in monitoring or regulating religion. They do have the right and the duty to monitor and regulate (and eliminate) extremists. | |
| | | | 
nemo1966
join:2005-11-15
England
| Re: Muslimism vs. other religions The guy has it spot on, Islam is an Evil violent religion. It is much like Nazism in it's ideals and goals e.g. to kill anyone who does not fall in line with its ideas (yes us Infidels)
Take the picture above.... burning effigies of the pope in the street, burning embasses because someone drew a cartoon, sentencing someone to death/prison for calling a teddy bear Mohammed.
I and that isn't the fanatics its the normal Islamic people.
The next World War will be fought between Islam and the rest of the World! ... and people wonder why the US is trying to stop Iran getting nuclear capabilties???????
I can see it now.... 20 years from now as the first bomb drops.... all the do-gooders in a room saying.. "well I didn't see that one coming"
Islam is an extremist religion by it's very definition.
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Emperor Manuel II Paleologos
--
| |
| | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Most "Christians" are far more violent than most Muslims. Just take a look at the violent crime stats here in the US. Muslims are nowhere near as likely to commit a violent crime as Christians. The problem is the extremists, not the religion. Think of names like Jim Jones or David Koresh (sp?). Muslims as a whole have historically been much more willing to accept other cultures. When the Moors took over Spain they pretty much just integrated into society (lots of intermarrying). Compare that to how the Christians handled the crusades (kill them all and let god sort them out). | |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Muslimism vs. other religions Extremists of all types, whether it be religion, politics, Patriotism, etc, all tend to be bad news. That's really what extremism is... People taking things to the extreme. | |
| | | |
nemo1966
join:2005-11-15
England
| Re: Muslimism vs. other religions said by KrK :Extremists of all types, whether it be religion, politics, Patriotism, etc, all tend to be bad news. That's really what extremism is... People taking things to the extreme. Islam is extremist by its very definition, akin to nazism.
--
| |
| | | | | smcallah
join:2004-08-05
Home
| Re: Muslimism vs. other religions Riiight...
I sure have hated it, all the years I went to school with Muslims and all the Muslims I have worked with for the last 12 years. They have all tried to kill me. They are so evil!
Don't be so ridiculous. Of course there are Muslim countries run by tyrants, I would never doubt that. But there are tyrants that are Catholics in South America and the Caribbean.
But the religious books are open to interpretation by good and evil alike. The Koran says a lot of things, but so does the Bible. It's up to the person reading it to his flock on how far they're willing to take it. And by taking it to the extreme, that's where the word extremism comes from. Islam is only as extreme as its worst follower. Just because you don't know of Christians that follow the Bible to the extreme doesn't mean they don't exist. Just look at the recent Polygamy camp raid in Texas, you couldn't have missed that. That is called taking your religion to the extreme.
All the Muslims I have ever known love the U.S., love their job, never had a bad thing to say about anyone. The only reason you would know they are Muslim is because they make sure they don't eat pork or where they were born. I've never once had a Muslim try to force his religion onto me, and have had plenty of Christians try to force their religion onto me.
And you can tell the "extreme" Christians easily, they're the ones that believe all Muslims are terrorists and that they should all be killed or shipped out of the country. Stupidity breeds extremism, but smart people start it. Bin Laden is not stupid, neither are many of the tyrant Muslim rulers or imams. But they certainly can rile up stupid people to do what they want. The same is true for evangelical Christian ministers. It wouldn't be too far fetched to have one that calls his followers to violence.
But I don't think that will happen, because of the major difference. Most Christian followers do not live in abject poverty. They live relatively comfortable lives compared to Muslim followers in countries that are still sometimes stuck in the 16th century. It's easier to rile people into violence if they have nothing to lose and probably nothing to gain. And the rich and smart rulers sit back and live comfortably, having the stupid ones do their bidding in the guise of religion.
But to single the entire Islam religion out as extremist just because of what it says in their holy book and what a few of the people in power choose to do is ridiculous. Especially when you read the text of the Bible and of the Koran and see they aren't that much different. | |
| | | | | |
See 13 replies to this post | |
| |
nemo1966
join:2005-11-15
England
| said by Lazlow :Most "Christians" are far more violent than most Muslims. Nope....... "WERE". Christians have had a violent past but that has changed dramitically in the last 100 years. The World has matured to a great extent and religion does not control the people of the "West" like it used to. Religion is no longer used as a tool of war by Christians.
Unfortunately Islam is a backward religion that holds onto archaic values, using those values to bully it's way through the World!
Bullies need to be stopped and the best way to stop a bully is hit them harder than they hit you!
--
| |
| | | |
See 25 replies to this post | |
| | 
MoeDumb
"No more RINOs"
Premium
join:2002-09-23
Bronx, NY
edit:
April 26th, @10:21AM
| said by Lazlow :Most "Christians" are far more violent than most Muslims.... Compare that to how the Christians handled the crusades (kill them all and let god sort them out). Evidently you don't know the difference between Christians and Roman Catholics.
And it's God, not god.
--
Who is Jesus? and Why it matters (to YOU).
| |
| | | | Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | Re: Muslimism vs. other religions MoeDumb
It is god when it is some nutbar killing people. My God is not about killing people.
There are plenty of examples of non catholic christians doing killing in the name of god. See above for some examples. | |
| | | | fuziwuzi
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
·Comcast
| said by MoeDumb :Evidently you don't know the difference between Christians and Roman Catholics. And it's God, not god. You all look alike to me, one religionist is no different from another, and I have no deference to your or anyone else's god, so I'll write it as I see fit. | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| the Muslim religion as itself is peaceful, problem is so many who practice it arent. however they arent alone, afterall here in the US you have the Christian extremists who like to kill abortion doctors and blow up the clinics, or blame gays on the iraq war and protest the funerals of our fallen.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Personally.... I feel that nothing at all should be filtered for any reason. If something is illegal by that society's moral standard, then measures should be in place to track down and deal with those breaking the law. As the morals and laws change, then the baseline is still there to go by.
However, that does not mean everything should be openly available either. The internet is a 2 way communicator and is world wide. There needs to be measures in place that can accurately block or restrict material at a user's request. | |
| Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO
| Dumb Pipe I just want a dumb pipe. In cases like child porn (or whatever is illegal in any specific jurisdiction) let law enforcement deal with it. If you get caught with 2 kilos of cocaine in your car on a toll road nobody expects the owners of the road to be responsible for it. Why should we expect a higher standard for ISPs. We have officers that patrol the highways and streets, why not the internet? Apply all the same rules. If it is in plain sight (on open web page, ftp, etc) then no warrant needed (on the internet). Capture the pages and get a warrant for the physical location. | |
| | 
SuperCPA
Premium
join:2002-11-28
Dayton, OH | Re: Dumb Pipe Amen! | |
| |
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Agreed | |
| | Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| FBI computer crimes does patrol the US part of the net. but governments make laws like this because they are afraid of free flowing information and they are feelgood laws. here in the US for example if they tried it they would guise it as squashing child porn. because you instantly win when its about the children. aka a "feel good" law.
making the ISPs do it is like saying EZ-Pass has to somehow know if cars are moving illegal goods and not raise the gate at the toll booth. but there is no need because the state police patrol those roads.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | |
mod_wastrel
join:2008-03-28 | Should ISPs Be Filtering 'Extremism'? Well, gee, sure... why not?
After all, what you don't know can't hurt you... right?
(/sarcasm) | |
| 
i1me2ao
join:2001-03-03
TEXAS | no why should it be? | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| IMHO.... .... Take it for what it's worth...
An ISP should not be required, and should not voluntarily filter .... ANYTHING.
Safe Harbor... Once you start filtering this, you set the precedent.... next you'll have to filter this.. and block that... and prevent this... and so on, and so on.
We already have plenty of laws on the books how to deal with things like terrorism, child porn, piracy etc etc. We shouldn't start a regime of censorship and protectionism. It would be bad.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| |
nemo1966
join:2005-11-15
England
| Re: IMHO.... said by KrK :.... Take it for what it's worth... An ISP should not be required, and should not voluntarily filter .... ANYTHING. I disagree, child porn and Islam are prime candidates.
They are both sick and Evil by definition. I don't see any reason at all to allow either of them.
--
| |
| | |
Rogue Wolf
Is Not One To Squander His Investments
join:2003-08-12
Saratoga Springs, NY
| Re: IMHO.... Hate speech is also a prime candidate for being filtered.
Your anti-Islamic posts could qualify as hate speech.
Therefore, you should be filtered!
Do you see how easy this game is to play?
--
I have learned to ignore such naysayers, when... quelling... them... hm?... was out of the question. | |
| | | |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| Re: IMHO.... Exactly! Oh and let's say I'm atheist, and am offended by all this Muslim and Christian talk, so therefore, all Religion should be filtered... etc etc etc so on and so forth
Trust me. Once the ball is rolling, it will just keep picking up speed. Far better to never start down the road of censorship, filtering, blocking, etc then try and stop the runaway train later.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| 
A900MHz Fan
join:2004-07-12
Mitchell, SD | Why not have opt-in filters? How about an option for people/families that wish to have the internet filtered? Many people out there do not have the time nor ability to implement filters for their connection. Perhaps a good idea is to opt-in to these ISP filters?
Neal | |
| |
MoeDumb
"No more RINOs"
Premium
join:2002-09-23
Bronx, NY | Re: Why not have opt-in filters? Check it out: »www.kidzui.com/ | |
| | | a333
join:2007-06-12
Little Neck, NY | Re: Why not have opt-in filters? quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
(Who will guard the guards?) | |
| flakjakit
join:2005-11-11
Brentwood Bay, BC
| Filtering.. um sure .. why not??.. they filter everything else.. what would we stand to lose/miss? i dont want to get political, however, have you checked your front pocket lately?.. ya.. thats not MY hand its the government..
speaking off topic but not really, i was banned from a forum for speaking about how i felt about a certain 'driving' game..we wont mention nor use in a slanderous way the game overseers names but they must be awfully paranoid as to how far and how much free press they get when the game take a turn for the worse..i happened to 'mention' this in my last post there and low and behold i cant get back in because of certain 'problems' they are having with 'my account'. the very least they could do is send me a ---t letter and tell me that i CANT express my free will ( and hey.. it didnt even use profanity.. just some truths about the game the everyone was willing to over look ).. in a, what i was led to believe to be a free expression of what i felt.. just like everyone else on that particular forum was doing.. i guess they cant take a litle bit of honest criticism.
filtering me out of their forum wont stop my thoughts on their crappy game/how it runs and the bla sound that went with it. filtering? na, just a boot mark where i was. thanks atari ! opps! | |
| fuziwuzi
join:2005-07-01
Atlanta, GA
·Comcast
| voluntary filtering only If an ISP wants to market itself as a filtered portal, so be it. As long as it is clearly identified as such and the people who subscribe to it know what they are getting, that's the free market. But ISPs should never, EVER, be required to filter anything, neither should a government mandate filtering. | |
| 
cruzinmy64
@ameritech.net | HellNo There is no way in hell they should censor ANYTHING. Anyone who supports this should get a bullet in the head!
The REAL militant people DO NOT PUBLISH THEIR CRAP ONLINE you idiots! Just another BS lie to stop FREE SPEECH! | |
| 
jonnyz
Premium
join:2003-03-20
Canfield, OH
clubs:
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Paid Use In America, we PAY for the internet (and cable TV and satellite radio); therefore, I expect limited/no censorship in these things (and before I get the free internet in libraries, schools, and coffee shops argument, they have their own "censorship" filters in place). Broadcast TV and radio is free, so let it be censored to an extent.
--
Join the RC5 team. | |
| | | |
|
|
Should ISPs Be Filtering 'Extremism'?
Censorship;but logical internet rules same as newspaper rule
