Internet and Censorship

[Cathar]

I was just after some people's opinion on this. It seems that some (many?) believe that the internet should be totally bereft of ANY form of censorship.

First, let's get our terminology clear. Censorship means the definition, classification, and subsequent enforcing (removal and prosecution), in whole or in part, of those purveying material that is deemed to be absolutely unacceptable.

Now that, of course, leaves a rather wide hole whereby what is legal depends on what country you are in, however there does seem to be at least one thing which is universally recognised as unacceptable in every country, and that is child pornography and/or paedophilia.

Now the natural progression of logic goes that child pornography should be "censored". Those who violate such censorship should be hunted down and dealt with to the full extent of the law wherever they are.

Child pornography is unacceptable, world-wide, in every medium, with snuff movies and racial hatred sites coming in pretty close on child porn's tail, although these others do seem somewhat open to debate apparantly depending on where you live.

However, it seems that a major stumbling block for many, in my experience, occurs when the words "censorship" and "internet", are used in the same context. Suddenly it appears that people who were leaping up and down claiming that censorship of child pornography was wholly appropriate and necessary, then turned around and even more strongly stated that the internet should never be censored, even if that includes the internet being used to transfer child pornography.

I found myself totally unable to accept that point of view, however I am open to a healthy debate for someone to explain to me just in what manner that child pornography should be excused from being censored (sought out, found, and shut-down - which is what censorship is) when it comes to the internet.

Opinions? I have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation as to why the internet should be immune to the censorship of child porn, even though a recent poll at another forum found that around 95% of people believed that the intenet should have absolutely zero censorship whatsoever.

[jaydee]

I think there has to be censorship. Why should the internet be immune to the laws of the world? What makes the internet so special that it is above the law?

If there was no censorship SPAM would destroy the net in seconds. It would be so loaded with crap you could hardly browse it... I wish there was MORE censorship or more enforcement on current types of censorship.


If one has a problem with censorship then most likely they are wanting to do things they shouldn't be doing anyway on the net.

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by jaydee116

If one has a problem with censorship then most likely they are wanting to do things they shouldn't be doing anyway on the net.

Well the one reason that I think I did manage to make out amongst the crawling hypocrisy, was that many were deathly afraid that accepting any form of censorship, no matter the reasons, would ultimately lead down the "slippery slope" to the point that they would no longer be able be to engage in activities that they deemed they should be able to do, but that the society did not. e.g. copy-right violation, ability to download warez copies of games, ability to buy/view other types of banned material that are illegal for one reason or another by local law, ability for underage people to view hardcore pornography, etc.

i.e. the fear that one day that they may not be able to continue to access material that is illegal for other reasons which they "enjoy" access to now, is more important than accepting that censorship of the internet with respect to child pornography is necessary.

[jaydee]

Originally Posted by Cathar

Well the one reason that I think I did manage to make out amongst the crawling hypocrisy, was that many were deathly afraid that accepting any form of censorship, no matter the reasons, would ultimately lead down the "slippery slope" to the point that they would no longer be able be to engage in activities that they deemed they should be able to do, but that the society did not. e.g. copy-right violation, ability to download warez copies of games, ability to buy/view other types of banned material that are illegal for one reason or another by local law, ability for underage people to view hardcore pornography, etc.

i.e. the fear that one day that they may not be able to continue to access material that is illegal for other reasons which they "enjoy" access to now, is more important than accepting that censorship of the internet with respect to child pornography is necessary.

Agree completely.

It is the same type of people that break a part and RMA it to get a new one and think they deserve the new part even though they broke it. People have no concept of business and how business's STAY in business. It is not by giving away their product for free. Just because a business is making good profit doesn't give you anymore right to steal their product.

[pHaestus]

Well I think that, as this discussion quickly shows, the censorship issue is pretty closely tied to digital rights/copyright issues. And there are a lot more issues than "I don't want to pay for software" at work here. I like to rip the children's dvds I buy to xvid, put them on my HTPC, and allow them to watch them that way rather than end up with scratched up dvds. That's technically illegal because the software to break dvd encryption is against DMCA. I've bought a music cd that won't play in my car or in my PC because of copy protection; only in an ancient walkman. I had to pull it off the newsgroups to even listen to it! I later learned that you could defeat the copy protection with a black Sharpie pen and I could listen then.

Who gets to decide what to censor though? US religious groups might be able to get popular support for making information on abortion/birth control, evolution, availability of pornography, and many other "controversial" topics blocked at the ISP level for people who live in their cities. Would this be ok? Governments in other parts of the world restrict availability of world news, politics, editorials, all kinds of stuff. Is that ok?

How many of your rights will you cede to a government for safety/public good? The answer to that question will differ for everyone.

[MadHacker]

I don't think the internet should be censored...
I beleive that other laws that are aleady in place should cover any of said issues..
take child pornography... don't censor it on the internet... make the ownership of it illegal...
so people that host it get busted for ownership of it... that is a more basic law then the internet...
also if they decide to host this trash it would make them easier to find and execute... I mean prosecute

[bigben2k]

I think that any site that put up porn should be registered as such; it would make filtering much easier. I believe that icann.org ought to be doing something there. If you put up porn without registering, your domain name ought to be de-registered, without notice. Of course this means that some kind of authority has to be in place, with rules and such, complete with a clear definition of what porn is, that is universally accepted. We have the V chip (voluntary program) here in the USA for TVs, why can't we have the same for the internet?

This issue would be similar to the old right to bear arms in the US, and I'm sure that many people would argue that registration is nonsense, for whatever crazy reason they come up with.

pHaestus has it right though; the copyright issue is a big one. If a site in another country copies something of yours, more than likely you won't have any kind of legal recourse. Your only option is to report it to the host, send a sternly worded letter, and keep your fingers crossed.

[HaloJones]

Got to agree with MadHacker here. Use existing laws to shutdown illegal activity but also put pressure at government level to a certain basic set of laws. But here is where it becomes difficult.

How old must a willing subject be before it is legal to take and publish nude photos? Is it 16 like in the UK? Or is it 14 as I believe it is in Holland? Or 18 as it is in many other countries? Who decides what's acceptable? And this is why so many are afraid of any censorship!

Do we go to the lowest common denominator or the highest? Or just whatever America in its world police disguise decides?

It is illegal to possess nude photos of under-16s in the UK. But the UK cannot block all sites around the world that think it's OK to show under-16s so its only recourse is to go after the possessors not the publishers.

[Vector86]

And who would police the internet? Just like communism, the idea of censoring the internet also seems good on paper. Censoring the net is a bad Idea IMHO, child porn is bad but I don't browse it because I don't want to, no body HAS to deal with any of the bad things on the net. As it is now, the net is a place for people to share their ideas unobstructed by anything. I enjoy listening to people express their opinions whether I agree or disagree.

[Breach]

I believe as did the architects of the internet, that it should always be free and unsensored for all. I do agree that some things should have special classification for purposes of filtering. But in the end, if you dont like what you see, THEN TURN OFF THE COMPUTER and stop paying for an ISP. You have complete control over viewing this content, no one is forcing you to use it.

What really irks me about any of these censorship issues, the minority thinks they have the right to change the majority because they are offended by something that they have complete control over. If you are so freaked out about it, then try using the off button that the TV, the Radio, and Computer all have in common. Who has the right to censor what I pay to get, who is the FCC to censor my paid for cable, what would the internet be if it were censored aside a husk of controlled media? No one is forcing television radio or internet down anyones throat last time I checked.

The internet was founded on the right of free speech and I think it should stay that way, and availiable to everyone.

Granted, anything that really is illegal, such as child pr0n, site with copyrighted materials not of thier own, that kind of thing, by all means use the legal arm to shut that down. I have no problem with filtering as long as it is the means of the person who wants that and not mandatory for everyone.

But never should anyones voice on the net be silenced otherwise.

It all comes down to a simple choice really, turn it on and prepare to have some tolerance for the stuff that you dont like, or crawl into a hole and dont bother anyone else.

As far as the internet itself is concerned, I think that the way it has been uncensored is its best virtue and its worst attribute. It is a totally control-less entity, no one owns it, and as such it is a wide and spanned way for people to communicate however they wish. Of course this has the drawback that there is a lot of trash out there and no one to control it for the most part. The best way in my mind is install some kind of filtering classifications, but thats it. If you want the net raw and unfiltered thats your choice, but if you want to block porn class websites and such that should be a choice too. Not just censoring it for everyone.

ok, rant over

[Vector86]

Originally Posted by Der Brewling

I believe as did the architects of the internet, that it should always be free and unsensored for all. I do agree that some things should have special classification for purposes of filtering. But in the end, if you dont like what you see, THEN TURN OFF THE COMPUTER and stop paying for an ISP. You have complete control over viewing this content, no one is forcing you to use it.

What really irks me about any of these censorship issues, the minority thinks they have the right to change the majority because they are offended by something that they have complete control over. If you are so freaked out about it, then try using the off button that the TV, the Radio, and Computer all have in common. Who has the right to censor what I pay to get, who is the FCC to censor my paid for cable, what would the internet be if it were censored aside a husk of controlled media? No one is forcing television radio or internet down anyones throat last time I checked.

The internet was founded on the right of free speech and I think it should stay that way, and availiable to everyone.

Granted, anything that really is illegal, such as child pr0n, site with copyrighted materials not of thier own, that kind of thing, by all means use the legal arm to shut that down. I have no problem with filtering as long as it is the means of the person who wants that and not mandatory for everyone.

But never should anyones voice on the net be silenced otherwise.

It all comes down to a simple choice really, turn it on and prepare to have some tolerance for the stuff that you dont like, or crawl into a hole and dont bother anyone else.

As far as the internet itself is concerned, I think that the way it has been uncensored is its best virtue and its worst attribute. It is a totally control-less entity, no one owns it, and as such it is a wide and spanned way for people to communicate however they wish. Of course this has the drawback that there is a lot of trash out there and no one to control it for the most part. The best way in my mind is install some kind of filtering classifications, but thats it. If you want the net raw and unfiltered thats your choice, but if you want to block porn class websites and such that should be a choice too. Not just censoring it for everyone.

ok, rant over

that was said better than I could have.

[Cathar]

I think people are misunderstanding the intent of the original post. Obviously the word "censorship" draws a lot of negative connotations.

The intent could perhaps be more correctly worded as:

"Should the Internet be `policed'?" For example should it be subject to illegal content such as sites that public child-porn be shut-down?

Now shutting down and removing illegal content is still an act of censorship.

So I guess it's like this:

"Should illegal content servers be shut down?"

If the answer is yes, then you do in fact support censorship, albeit it an extremely limited fashion, but is is still a form of censorship.

[SpeedSwede]

Who would decide what 'illegal content' is?

[pHaestus]

Originally Posted by SpeedSwede

Who would decide what 'illegal content' is?

Jesus, of course!

[Cathar]

Originally Posted by SpeedSwede

Who would decide what 'illegal content' is?

Illegal is decided on a per-country basis on where the content servers live in.

[Long Haired Git]

I haven't thought this through and am just brain storming whilst typing.

Every person in the world legally belongs to one country (well, pretty close to it).
Every company in the world is legally registered in one country.

So, straight away, enforce the 1:1 of a web site's location with the owner's legal location.
The web server will need to be located in the country as well. Yes, physically.

Yes, there are a lot of ".coms" - these will need to replaced with pointers to "legal" websites - representing the country they are registered in. Change is bad, but this is the internet. Perhaps enforce it with "internet2"?

So, if porn monger X can find a country with "relaxed" rules, then they can register a company there and locate a web server there and serve their porn from there. The speed and service will deteriate. And nice people like me (who only like normal porn, ha ha ha ha) know to avoid the web sites ending in .XX.

If the USA (or AUS) were clever, they'd then enforce a second level like .porn.us or .porn.au.

So, its boxing and labelling, but not stopping or censoring per-se.

My company then goes and blocks .porn.* or blocks .*.XX because that country won't properly enforce its rules.

[MadHacker]

Originally Posted by Long Haired Git

So, if porn monger X can find a country with "relaxed" rules, then they can register a company there and locate a web server there and serve their porn from there. The speed and service will deteriate. And nice people like me (who only like normal porn, ha ha ha ha) know to avoid the web sites ending in .XX.

If the USA (or AUS) were clever, they'd then enforce a second level like .porn.us or .porn.au.

So, its boxing and labelling, but not stopping or censoring per-se.

My company then goes and blocks .porn.* or blocks .*.XX because that country won't properly enforce its rules.

becuase a country doesn't "properly" enforce it's rules doesn't change the fact that that specifiec country may have some "normal" porn you may enjoy..

or if you ban *.XX and company that is from that company has a new high tech item you will be blocking it out...

[SpeedSwede]

What I really don't understand is why you feel the need to filter out (or label) anything.

If I started putting red stickers on all pedophiles so I could avoid them, would that be ok?

[bigben2k]

Originally Posted by SpeedSwede

What I really don't understand is why you feel the need to filter out (or label) anything.

If I started putting red stickers on all pedophiles so I could avoid them, would that be ok?

...and strangely, that would not constitute censorship, because you're still making a choice.

I'm all for the .XX idea, not just because I'd like to filter it out, but also for the sake of all the kids that surf the net.

[mastermind2004]

Originally Posted by SpeedSwede

What I really don't understand is why you feel the need to filter out (or label) anything.

If I started putting red stickers on all pedophiles so I could avoid them, would that be ok?

Just make it an opt-in system. You can have unfettered access if you'd like, or you can enable the filtering (schools, children, etc.). It shouldn't be a mandatory program, but something that can be decided on by the user. There just needs to be some type of framework for it.

[MadHacker]

Originally Posted by mastermind2004

There just needs to be some type of framework for it.

It is getting all the countries world wide to agree to this framework that will be the problem...

[SpeedSwede]

Originally Posted by bigben2k

...and strangely, that would not constitute censorship, because you're still making a choice.

Not strange at all, but do the ones that get labeled have a choice? No. In my country this would in fact be against the law! (right to have any opinion, right to privacy etc)

This is what I see:
1. Make undesirable content easily identifiable
2. Filter out said content
3. ?
4. Profit!

I still don't understand why some content needs to be filtered out. Say you make all bad content get the tld '.sux'. Now you can keep it away from your employees/kids. What will it accomplish?

[bigben2k]

Ok, but programs that assist you in blocking porn sites, like NetNanny and the likes, are essentially doing this 'labeling'. How's that against the law?

[MadHacker]

Originally Posted by bigben2k

Ok, but programs that assist you in blocking porn sites, like NetNanny and the likes, are essentially doing this 'labeling'. How's that against the law?

I beleive porn sites register their websites with netnanny...
also netnanny looks at each html page and screens it for key words.
if certain keywords are on the page then the page will not be aloud to be viewed.

[Long Haired Git]

Originally Posted by MadHacker

becuase a country doesn't "properly" enforce it's rules doesn't change the fact that that specifiec country may have some "normal" porn you may enjoy..

or if you ban *.XX and company that is from that company has a new high tech item you will be blocking it out...

Yes, but that's my choice. I am not talking about ISPs or governments blocking .XX, I am talking about individuals. Label things and then I can pick and choose.

I am talking about my work giving me free and open access to the web, except to areas of the webs not work related.

Originally Posted by SpeedSwede

What I really don't understand is why you feel the need to filter out (or label) anything.

About 2 years ago my now-6-year-old was surfing the net next to me. He typed in "www.BobTheBuider.com" (note missed L) and was directed to a rather explicit website. Now the guy who registered the domain is now in jail, and if he ever knocks on my door I'm going to punch him in the nose. Registering that site and pointing it to porn was guaranteed to expose children to porn.

However, I'd much rather have in my little boy's profile, a setting that blocks *.porn.*.

Originally Posted by bigben2k

Ok, but programs that assist you in blocking porn sites, like NetNanny and the likes, are essentially doing this 'labeling'. How's that against the law?

I guess I am just giving a big-leg-up to NetNanny, and I suppose, enabling MS and others to just make it part of their browser....