

Censorship - Won’t someone think of the adults? - mhw
http://gonedigital.net/2010/12/20/censorship-%E2%80%93-won%E2%80%99t-someone-think-of-the-adults/

======
madmaze
Censorship of the internet, any at all, is a problem. As soon as we are
filtering in any way shape or form, it will not stop.

The Internet is what it is, open/free/uncensored, and it is no-ones
responsibility to censor what is said or shown. If someone would like to
"protect" themselves from freedom of speech and freedom of press then it is
their own responsibility and no one elses.

~~~
joshhart
Kiddie porn is OK?

~~~
sorbus
No, of course not. However, it isn't an excuse for censorship. It is an excuse
for going after the people producing it, and monitoring those who consume it
(in the USA, the FBI is the largest distributor of child porn, with the goal
of arresting people who look at it, for instance). Also, there's a pretty huge
difference between censoring all the pornography on the internet (which would
inevitably include lots of non-pornographic content) and occasionally asking
hosting companies to remove illegal content from their networks as part of
legal action against the offending individuals.

Also, as an aside, I find it interesting that child porn tends to crop up in
every single discussion of censoring the internet. It's something that pretty
much everyone agrees is wrong, true, but it's not an argument for generalized
censorship, any more than the existence of child abuse is an argument for
putting sensors on every child in the world to see if they're being abused.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> (in the USA, the FBI is the largest distributor of child porn, with the goal
> of arresting people who look at it, for instance)

[citation needed]

Really, I'm curious where you got this fact.

~~~
sorbus
I recall reading it in an article about child porn a while back, and so don't
have a citation off-hand. A bit of googling hasn't turned up that exact fact
from any reputable source, although I have seen some other people mentioning
it, along with quotes supporting the assertion (which I haven't been able to
find the source of, strangely).

As early as 2007, the FBI did post links which claimed to be child porn as
part of sting operations[1], and I remember reading about that in the past, so
the fact might have gotten confused over time; it's also possible that I saw
it in an article which I simply haven't been able to find. However, I'll
retract that statement until I'm able to find a citation.

[1] <http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-9899151-38.html>

------
num1
I've always wondered how we have created the system within which we find
ourselves. It is possible for someone to write this well about an argument and
obviously be in the right. But somehow, their argument will either be
completely ignored or rebutted with a comment that doesn't properly argue the
article. The injust law will then be passed regardless.

I'm talking in generalizations and not about this issue specifically. However
it is a recurring theme that some invasive law will be proposed, and
reasonable people reasonably argue why it shouldn't pass, and it passes
anyway. How have we allowed this to happen?

~~~
wladimir
Well, in a democracy the largest mob will win the vote, and not the one with
the best arguments. And this largest mob is influenced by the mass media very
strongly, so the 'vote' of the majority is really that of a powerful minority
that controls the mass media. (which obviously presses for stronger control to
be even more powerful) This is an issue with democracies everywhere in the
world. I'm not sure how this 'recurring theme' can be broken, if at all.

------
semanticist
Except it's not 'The Government' proposing to 'pressure' ISPs, it's one lone
back-bench MP.

~~~
eftpotrm
For such a far-reaching scheme I was curious why it wasn't getting more
coverage... Who is the well-informed and clear-minded (ahem) politician in
question?

~~~
mhw
According to <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063> it was raised by
Culture Minister Ed Vaizey in an interview with the Sunday Times, but they
then link to <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11822874> where they say
that Conservative MP Claire Perry called for an opt-in system.

I would link to the Sunday Times article, but it's behind the Times paywall,
so we're unable to find out what our elected representatives have been saying.

~~~
jerf
The Government's problem with an opt-in system is that once you agree it
should be an opt-in system, who says it has to be a _Government_ opt-in
system? Why not a private service? How will they ratchet from an opt-in to an
opt-out to a mandatory system if they aren't even the ones running the opt-in
system?

~~~
iuygtrftghyujik
That's easy - you just have a quiet word with the owners of the company. Just
like the US did with the cell phone companies to get warrantless wiretaps on
1000s of phones.

Then of course since the system is private there is no question of any
political motivation and the list of banned sites is also secret as it's
"commercially sensitive"

------
Swizec
What about the good old "The internet sees censorship as damage and routes
around it" rule?

Why can't we just continue routing around censorship like we have for the past
20 years?

~~~
cryptoz
Maybe, but that can become a tough game. For example, look at the recent
takedowns of 70+ .com domain names. The US Government made a decision for _the
whole world_ what content is okay. Yes, we can keep routing around the damage.
But as governments become gutsier about how they take content down, they may
successfully censor content for 99% of the Internet users.

The rest of us - the nerds - will always be able to overcome any censorship
that is imposed. But the masses may not follow our tricks; maybe it's too much
trouble for them or they just don't care enough. Either way, it's bad news.

~~~
Swizec
When you think about it like that, hippies had the same problem in regards to
certain wars once upon a time.

Women also used to have this sort of problem 60-ish years ago.

The point is, governments' minds can be changed.

