Granted, it's just in Australia right now. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111255-Australias-Internet-Filter-Switches-On-In-July
Hell of a precedent, though.
One company has already gotten scared; http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/111282-Hacktivists-Force-Pause-in-Australian-Net-Censorship Being the targets of internet vigilantes such as "Anonymous". A rather insidious bunch but hey, whatever gets people's attention.
I understand the original idea is to filter our Child Pornography, which is a great idea. But where will it end? Perhaps various internet companies feel porn altogether should be blocked. (And hey, even as a woman, I have needs!) Perhaps bad language next! Then all will have to suffer those annoying blocked sites when trying to do research in high school, where ever other source was pretty much blocked because it censors words, with or without context.
I meant in the sense that the goals are the same. But we, the people, should be able to say and watch whatever we want.
One debate is, I'd rather people -watch- porn rather than, "act" it. Like that one episode in SVU, he ran a site that advertised "Look, don't touch."
I'm not promoting child porn here, but in that form it's rather harmless. Cutting that out could bring out a lot of sexual offenders that didn't have to be offenders.
It is my personal belief that the internet should be censored not by the producers, but by the clients. There's plenty of protective systems available- as one person mentioned, K9 protection- to assist in the blocking of NSFW or illegal things from your monitors and systems. It should never be the producer's job to make sure the Client doesn't end up hurting themselves with their product.
That is my reasoning for the legalizing of drugs. If you know the bad effects of smoking, doing meth, eating mcDonalds, or going on the internet, then you have every right to do it. As long as you take full responsibility for your actions and you don't try to point fingers in your favor, why would you attempt to do such a thing?
In this case, I hate censorship. I believe that government and internet service providers should have no say in what a person can or cannot see. It's not like I like the things that people can throw up- child pornography and so many other things in the internet have scarred me and are entirely disgusting- it's just that it is our responsibility to block these exact images from our children and homes.
Besides, to censor the internet would make me lose all love of humanity. If the internet is constantly censored, then there truly is no freedom. To speak your mind, take the consequences, and then move on? That's true freedom, and if I am blocked by asterisks every single time I use an explative, then I am not free!
I support Anonymous, and the people that they "attack". They are a very chaotic-good typed faction who are sometimes noble and sometimes ignoble. In my mind, they tend to target a lot of people who deserve to be targeted. For instance, PSN was hacked and taken down becuase PSN was disallowing stupid little things that people should be allowed to do.
In other words, Anon is generally a faction of rogue freedom fighters who are fighting for my ability to type this exact post right here. I truly think they do good work, despite a few of their... unsavory dispositions (Child Pornography, for example).
Besides, to censor the internet would make me lose all love of humanity. If the internet is constantly censored, then there truly is no freedom. To speak your mind, take the consequences, and then move on?
Debateably, speaking on the internet has no consequences. That's why it can be a really, really disgusting place to be.
I'm not promoting child porn here, but in that form it's rather harmless. Cutting that out could bring out a lot of sexual offenders that didn't have to be offenders.
Pornography continues to be a contentious matter with those on the one side arguing it detrimental to society while others argue it is pleasurable to many and a feature of free speech. The advent of the Internet with the ready availability of sexually explicit materials thereon particularly has seemed to raise questions of its influence. This study, following the effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed pornography to a society previously having forbidden it allowed us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon has been studied, **** and other sex crimes did not increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of child sex abuse.
Yeah but, that stuff is going to end up on the internet forever. It's not like you can do anything to stop child pornography, any sick person can use a camera and upload pictures. You can't really stop it, so isn't the next best thing to do is make it harder to obtain?
If the problem is people making the stuff rather than people looking at it then you've solved nothing by making it harder to find. In fact that could even hurt the process. Right now those who want to see it stopped can find and report it. If it's blocked we won't see that as much. Also there are those (not sure of the percentage would make a difference) who opt to view the material they find instead of going out and making their own. By further restricting the viewing of such material you run the risk of it doing more harm this way as well.
Not the study I read, but it is consistent. Even relates to the whole "video game" thing, too. Which I won't get into for fear of going offtopic. (Though it would be more side-topic.)
[quote]Censoring things on the internet is a great idea, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. Certain things should be blocked, such as child pornography like you mentioned, and things like how to make meth(which you can find very easily with a google search) and other very harmful substances. Blocking those types of things would be great, but a block on profanity or other things inappropriate for young ages would be ridiculous.[quote]
Child pornography - always a plus to be censored as the likes of that is beyond disgusting.
Censorship as a whole in my opinion is a breach of human rights though (Which sadly makes me disagree with the point i just made. No government has the right to control what we see and what we see - plain and simple.
Child pornography - always a plus to be censored as the likes of that is beyond disgusting.
I find porn where people eat waste disgusting should that be censored? I don't think finding the imagery disgusting is justification to censoring it. With someone being charged with possession of porn what is it we are really charging them with? All they've done is fantasize about doing something wrong with visual aids. It makes about as much sense to me as charging someone with murder for just wanting to kill someone else.
Mage makes a good point. They haven't actually done anything. But I guess they just don't want to encourage it. Because the in demand they are, the more people will have to make. That's the only reason I can think of.
But I guess they just don't want to encourage it. Because the in demand they are, the more people will have to make. That's the only reason I can think of.
We can produce cartoons and even very realistic cgi that could fill demand without involving actual children.
I agree - most porn (to me) is horrible but possession of porn isn't the biggest deal in the world. I think it's just the idea of someone having kiddie porn and knowing what they could be capable of if they let their urges get too much.
I know this can be counter argued with beastiality and if someone capable of acting on it with an animal is as bad as that of a person. I think when underage vulnerable children on involved though they take prevalence.
We can produce cartoons and even very realistic cgi that could fill demand without involving actual children.
Yeah and I think the main concern are the ones with people. Those are probably lesser concerns because they are made by artists and are don't have a good argument aganist it.
By further restricting the viewing of such material you run the risk of it doing more harm this way as well.
But without the restriction, it's all over the net. Little kids + troubling pictures just looks bad. Not to mention, internet users are always getting younger. My younger cousin is 8 and she has a smartphone. If you block it out, wouldn't that eventually stop people from being introduced to it in the first place?
Debateably, speaking on the internet has no consequences. That's why it can be a really, really disgusting place to be.
I think that's the users choice. I could argue and flame all over the net and ignore everything anybody says, or I could read it and it might actually change my opinion on things. Just depends on who you are I guess.
Do you think that they have for example the right to censor all left-winged sites? Or can they censor all sites that say evolution is a fact?
Well, yes. They are a company. They own the stuff. Nobody can force me to host the picture of Obama online from my iPhone, and in the same way, nobody can force that company to change what they provide. So yes, I feel that sites like that have a right to do as they please, or ISPs, or whatever. By forcing them to show all material, you're taking away their rights.
If you and the left-winged/evolution lovers hate the idea so much, then they will fund for a new ISP/Satellite connection/whatever and you will gladly buy their service.
It's like a railroad. If a company, the only one in miles, uses two railroad cars, a blue and a black, the black one having a toilet in it, and they chose to only serve the blue, toiletless one, customers are allowed to complain that they don't have toilets but it isn't fair to say that the customers are losing their right to a toilet seat.
I know this can be counter argued with beastiality and if someone capable of acting on it with an animal is as bad as that of a person. I think when underage vulnerable children on involved though they take prevalence.
But child pornography is harmful to children while bestiality harms no one.
Personally, I'm an anti-porn feminist. Porn harms not only children, but the adults involved in creation and consumption. Censorship, however, is the far greater evil. Children, unlike humans and animals, can't give consent, which is why child porn is illegal.
