Censorship and the Net

[jaguar]

I'm curious, what opinions do you people hold on Internet privacy, or more accurately, censorship, particularly at Backbone level. Should it exist? Who should regulate? Does the Internet need to be regulated? And under whose jurisdiction should internet sites fall. The recent example of Yahoo Auction (America) being forced to remove Nazi items because of a FRENCH court decision was telling.......

Personally I believe the internet MUST remain totally unregulated, and free of any form of censorship, its the only medium where ANYONE can express any view they want without instant trashing, sure what they say can be total crap but I’m a passionate believer in TOTAL freedom of speech, take the good with the bad and save us from a stagnant society that crushes radical ideas.

(and I thought I’d stimulate some conversation on this rather dormant section)

[Griff]

"Personally I believe the internet MUST remain totally unregulated, and free of any form of censorship, its the only medium where ANYONE can express any view they want without instant trashing, sure what they say can be total crap but I’m a passionate believer in TOTAL freedom of speech, take the good with the bad and save us from a stagnant society that crushes radical ideas."


Right on the money! The only corollary I'd make is that for individuals to be free to associate with whomever they wish, internal censorship can exist on individual sites. I personally prefer an open site for the reason you mention, the free flow of ideas is far more interesting and provocative. Any censorship by authority over your sites content must be resisted. Does that make sense? Sites harboring unpopular ideas and discussions could be lost in a form of mob censorship if they fail to control access, which is, in effect, censorship.

[Dagnabit]

I agree, in fact an internet guru once said "the internet treats censorship as a network failure... and routes around it."

I recently had to analyze proposed legislation for libraries to see whether it had any impact on a site that I manage for the elderly. (It barely missed.)

The legislation was (supposedly) aimed at preventing kids from being emailed anonymously from libraries. In fact all this crap does is make the libraries that less likely to offer net access. It increases their costs.

This also has the unwanted secondary effect of increasing and changing the "digital divide" as the poor, netting at libraries, get radically filtered - while the rich live on with cable access and such.

If you've never seen the poor on the net at libraries, it is amazing. As part of this setup for the elderly I went to a library in Germantown (poor neighborhood in Philly). At 2 in the afternoon, every single one of their 20 systems was taken. And everybody there was using the net for something useful (job hunting, online study and such).


The only way to truly control the net will be to radically change its nature, which will also have the effect of making it massively less useful.

[elSicomoro]

I believe that we use the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution as a shield...too much.

People would love to talk all the shit they like, which you can generally do on the internet. I don't think the problem is as much censorship as it is netiquette and responsibility. I have no problem with freedom of speech; however, people HAVE to take responsibility for what they say. If you want to talk about hating black folks, fine (This would personally bother me, but to each his own)...but be willing to accept any backlash for it. Anonymity...it's fine, but if you have any cojones, you won't feel a need to hide yourself in most cases.

The situation involving the Nazi memorabilia...personally, I think it was a smart move. (Notice though, I said PERSONALLY.) Yahoo would have been under more scrutiny (like the porn situation a few weeks back) and may have lost business. Not to mention, no one should be making money off Nazi stuff.

[tw]

Originally posted by jaguar
I'm curious, what opinions do you people hold on Internet privacy, or more accurately, censorship, particularly at Backbone level. Should it exist? Who should regulate? Does the Internet need to be regulated? And under whose jurisdiction should internet sites fall.

For many, they first have to answer the question of globalization. Do we want it? Do we fear it? Is it good or evil?

[elSicomoro]

[quote]Originally posted by tw

For many, they first have to answer the question of globalization. Do we want it? Do we fear it? Is it good or evil?

Globalization is happening as we speak...except in Philadelphia...over the Union's dead bodies. ;-)

The United States tries to pass itself off as being so diverse...however, we are really isolationist by nature. We don't want "your kind" here, we don't want to embrace technology created by other nations (as tw and others have noted with the car manufacturers)...God forbid! To go against public sentiment is unamerican! Look at the Red Scare of the 1950s...over ideology.

The US has nothing to worry about in terms of being the "best nation on earth." There is certainly nothing wrong with wanting a fine car, such as a Honda. (Although, notice that the sentiment against foreign cars always seems directed at the Japanese. Not to mention, many Chevrolets are finished at Ste. Therese, Quebec. Last I checked, Quebec is still part of Canada...and not the United States.) We're using cell phone technology employed by the Finns. Islam and Buddhism are pervading our society (that's pervading in a GOOD way). We need to drop our hostilities or fears of anything unAmerican and embrace what the rest of the world offers.

[jaguar]

=)
Well, that certainly got some feedback; yes there is a danger of ppl posting stuff they can’t back up
Just take a look at the Americans for Purity Site
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/2680
FUCKING FUNNY IT’S SO STUPID

But that is the thing, you must take the good with the bad, and decide for yourself what is good and bad, not let others make that choice for you, at least you should have the choice to decide whether they decide or you, not mandatory censorship at backbone level.

As for Globalization. I take a mixed view, I have a VERY big problem with our currant system of democracy, which is see as being fundamentally undermined by huge campaign bribes from corporations, making them able to literally buy government decisions and power. What happened to one man, one vote? Call me an idealist but that is what I believe in, and we should try to get as close to that as we can.

Creating a system that allows for this equality requires the limiting of size and maximizing competition in the business world, this is no slight task. The first step I believe is to put the bite back into the watchdogs, power back in governments were it is democratically elected, rather than business that only care about their bottom line.

After that? I have many ideas, I discuss/debate/argue this on a daily basis with a number of friends, I’ve been branded socialist, communist, Stalin-lover, and other titles; I gave up and stuck a sticker on all my books (godless commie scum). I don't believe I’m any of those, none of them work, something new, a blend is needed, it’s a matter of balance, of power, of money.

But I’m drifting....I have a problem with globalization, or more accurately, the way it is currently being done, it sucks, big-time, groups like the WTO are oligarchies, and dangerous ones, I was at the S11 protest, coz I believe that a group of such immense power, should be at least open to some public scrutiny.

Globalization is inventible, it’s a matter of how it’s done, and that I believe needs to change.

I realise my political views are HIGHLY idealistic, but hey, ya gotta start somewhere.