×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Shortest Internet Censorship Debate Ever

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the on-second-thought dept.

Censorship 169

rysiek writes "When a politician starts talking about defending the innocence of children, there's bound to be a great policy initiative ahead. That's how British PM David Cameron introduced the British porn block. That's also how the Polish Minister of Justice started his remarks yesterday morning on how good an idea it is and that it should be introduced in Poland. This started the shortest Internet censorship debate ever, as in the evening of the same day the Polish Prime Minister and the Minister of Administration and Digitization denounced any such ideas: 'We shall not block access to legal content regardless of whether or not it appeases us aesthetically or ethically.' There had been several full-blown Internet censorship debates in Poland during the last four years. Apparently the arguments against it were not lost on at least some of Polish politicians."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

169 comments

Hurrah! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44398871)

Hurrah for Po(rn)land!

Re:Hurrah! (1)

Kwpolska (2026252) | about 9 months ago | (#44398897)

Our laws also make lolicon illegal, at least according to certain people on the Internets.

Re:Hurrah! (-1, Offtopic)

interval1066 (668936) | about 9 months ago | (#44399421)

Either something is legal or it isn't. As idiotic and possibly dangerous as porn is (Ariel Castro, the Cleveland basement kidnapper, recently admitted [cleveland.com] to an "addiction to porn", whatever that is) censorship just covers up societal problems and redirects the issue so that politicians can point to it and say they're doing something about it. Good on these Pollack ministers for doing the right thing.

Re:Hurrah! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399933)

(Ariel Castro, the Cleveland basement kidnapper, recently admitted [cleveland.com] to an "addiction to porn", whatever that is)

So what. Correlation does not imply causation as I'm sure J Edgar Hoover, John Wayne & Kirk Franklin would agree.

HOWTO debate censorship. (5, Interesting)

ThaumaTechnician (2701261) | about 9 months ago | (#44398901)

Lest someone not chase the links down, there's a useful 'HOWTO: EFFECTIVELY ARGUE AGAINST INTERNET CENSORSHIP IDEAS linked-to in the TFL at http://rys.io/en/94 [rys.io] "You forgot Poland" just might take on a new meaning.

Re:HOWTO debate censorship. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399175)

These debates happen often enough you'd think someone would formally study which arguments are most effective— I don't mean a pile of informal advice, but actual measurements of argument success.

Re:HOWTO debate censorship. (1)

rysiek (1328591) | about 9 months ago | (#44399341)

I don't think this is really doable, because each and every time there is a fsckton of political stuff going on behind the scenes and political reasons to do or not do stuff. It is impossible to measure the real (vs. perceived due to political reasons that we do not know of) impact of any single argument. At least, that's my experience with this.

Re:HOWTO debate censorship. (1)

Teun (17872) | about 9 months ago | (#44399249)

This is a prime example of a site that under the proposed UK law needs blocking!

If only for the odd sideways-scrolling :)

Re:HOWTO debate censorship. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399265)

Lest someone not chase the links down, there's a useful 'HOWTO: EFFECTIVELY ARGUE AGAINST INTERNET CENSORSHIP IDEAS linked-to in the TFL at http://rys.io/en/94 [rys.io]

"You forgot Poland" just might take on a new meaning.

Can someone please re-post that page in a format that does not absolutely fucking suck?

They remember the good ol' days... (1)

Macchendra (2919537) | about 9 months ago | (#44398917)

And so do I. I used to listen to polish punk that had all the words bleeped out. Sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better...

Re:They remember the good ol' days... (2)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 9 months ago | (#44399041)

I used to listen to polish punk that had all the words bleeped out.

I'm curious, was that because there were national or regional laws imposing it, was it because there was a market for it, or was it because a large retailer demanded it?

In the United States, albums with explicit content are often available in both censored and uncensored forms. The reason for this is a little but of all three reasons. There arent laws against selling explicit music, but there are laws against broadcasting explicit music in some cases. Additionally, some parents will buy their children censored versions of albums but not uncensored. Finally, some large retail chains voluntarily will not sell explicit content (presumably to win over the parents of the previous set.)

Re:They remember the good ol' days... (1, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 9 months ago | (#44399101)

It's just because they can't remember the lyrics.

Similarly, Polish plumbers forget to tighten fittings and Polish builders forget what a a right angle is.

Re:They remember the good ol' days... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399353)

I like how your Polish joke here works with your signature. You British? If so, it would also work wonderful with the context (i.e. "at least when Polish politicians remember something they tend to remember the right stuff"). ;)

Polish government are all traitors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44398977)

Polish government are all traitors. They are occupying this country together with communists that ruled here before 1990. Don't get fooled Poland is a free country. It is not.

Re:Polish government are all traitors (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399067)

Hmm. Seems we have the polish Breivik here. Or maybe the polish Varg Vikernes...

Re:Polish government are all traitors (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399227)

Polish government are all traitors. They are occupying this country together with communists that ruled here before 1990. Don't get fooled Poland is a free country. It is not.

Haha, disregard that. I am a Republican that secretly loves to suck cocks and fuck other men in the ass.

And this is a good thing how? (-1, Troll)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44398987)

The discussion shouldn't be ironically short, implying that 'it's so absurd we shouldn't be discussing it'. This discussion should be had extensively and without prejudice. Without sentiments like 'will someone pleeease think of the children' and 'You leave my internet ALONE!'. The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we? I want child-porn blocked. For everyone. I want sites blocked telling people actively to be violent. The whole thing is, what are exactly the limits there, how do we establish those boundaries? And enforce them? What's left is a discussion on the periphery. Outright dismissing any sort of censorship is naive. Outright implementing censorship is stupid.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (4, Insightful)

Yomers (863527) | about 9 months ago | (#44399097)

The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we?

Nope.

Why exactly should we want any censorship?

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44399409)

Did you stop reading after that exact sentence?

Re:And this is a good thing how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399529)

As has been repeated before:

Blocking encouraging posts about violence is inane. You'd have to dismantle Hollywood to do that. Citizens should be permitted to read whatever they want and be trusted to not act out on things not because they're illegal (which they already are), but because they see the damage it might cause. What you propose is the banning of ideas whether actioned on or not. That is not acceptable.

Banning child pornography is harder to argue against. However, filtering the internet is an endeavour of stupidity - at best, you can fit a sieve on the pipe but stuff you don't want will get through. As long as exchanging information through covert channels exist, child porn and other such content will be circulated. I'm unequivocally against producers of child porn because their actions cause measurable damage. Banning child porn or anything else is akin to prohibition of drugs - it won't work. It makes far more sense to go after the producers and make sure society is equipped to deal with people who develop dangerous obsessions, through counselling and reform and not through prison sentences.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 9 months ago | (#44399905)

Why should anybody read past it? Censorship is obscene, in all cases. There is nothing to debate. Nobody has a right to control what I see and hear. That is up to me and me alone. Too simple..

Re:And this is a good thing how? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399181)

I want child-porn blocked. For everyone.

I'd rather have the maker of the picture/video prosecuted. The damage is already done and I'm not buying into any "market dynamics" that claim the demand for CP is the cause for the production of it.

I want sites blocked telling people actively to be violent.

Your demands actually tell a lot about you. You don't trust other people to think for themselves and you rather cover up crimes than prosecute. And when the censorship exists, the likes of you will certainly block more to cover up their own fuckups. ANYONE demanding censorship has in the back of his head the demand to cover up faults of his own.

Go fuck yourself, Mr. Wannabe Dictator.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (0)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44399451)

You're reply is the reason any debate on this subject is impossible, apparently. I'm a father of two (soon to be three), I'm an active web developer and proponent of liberties for all. Right now the internet is often a unregulated wild west with the people enforcing law having too little knowledge or power. My point is that there needs to be at least some (open) discussion. If there isn't, it will soon be a closed one. And I'm not trying to cover up anything. My conscience is very clear, thank you. See how I reply to you without insulting you back? Hope that tells something about me too.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399575)

OK, so you're just the usual well-meaning, emotionally-involved, naive idiot who doesn't see the consequences of global censorship. Just as bad.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (0)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44399629)

Internet anonymity affects you way to much on a personal level. You display anti-social behavior in what would otherwise would be an educational conversation (for me at least). I'm convinced though, that you are too a well meaning guy in real life. But here apparently, equally emotionally involved.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399687)

I'll offer a devil's advocate counter-point. What you see here is a discussion nobody could have quietly in a room in real life. The internet's lack of regulation means people don't need to skirt around common courtesy when they disagree, and those offering retorts are free to reply in any way they wish. Unfortunately in this case there's little productive argument going on, but consider the recent furore over Linus' rants on LKML - they can have utility and might even be healthier than standard social norms of being careful to avoid treading on toes too much.

If this discourse isn't acceptable to you then you are of course free to complain as you are doing. Alternatives might be to look towards having discussions on forums where pseudonyms aren't used, or at least anonymity is not preserved if people want it.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44399715)

Anonymity is _absolutely_ fine by me. I am by no means interested in anyone's true identity here. Is it too much too ask for some common courtesy however, even when you don't have to give any.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399755)

Is it too much too ask for some common courtesy however, even when you don't have to give any.

Courtesy is dictated by social norms which we've accrued over centuries and only serves to interfere with discussion in my opinion. The point of my post was that if people are happy to participate where courtesy is left at the door then that's fine. Perhaps wandering into such an environment and asking for something people come here to escape from is a little naive? You're well within your rights to request it, but I believe I'm similarly within my rights to encourage you to let this one go or go wherever civility exists in discourse rather than trying to change the norms here.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (2)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44399799)

It's gone already, I request courtesy, but don't require it. I have a strong feeling however to be polite to anyone, even in disagreement, even in anonymity. I generally distrust someone (mildly) who doesn't share that 'nerve' somewhere.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399931)

I think you're an overprotective parent. I think you're the kind of guy who doesn't let their kids outside, even when they're young teenagers, for fear of them being hit by a car or sold drugs to. I think you don't understand that your responsibility as a parent isn't to hide the world from your children, as you argue, but to teach your children what is right and wrong in the world. I may be wrong with my assumptions, but more than likely I'm right. You mean well, but you do your children and the rest of the free and responsible society of the world an injustice by trying to be the judge of what is right and wrong to be seen on the internet. I hope the internet stays the wild west it is, full of things that don't show up on day time television. I hope it stays a place where children can escape parents like you to learn what they haven't been told or shown. Also, no offense meant, but your type of people disgust me because you preach a care for children but would do all you can to stifle their growth in to mature, educated and responsible adults.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44400055)

I think you're an overprotective parent

I'm not overprotective. At least not by my standards (so it's subjective, but then again, what isn't). My kids are outside right now, semi-attended. Me and the misses mostly listen for noises we don't trust. I think that's sort of what any parent does.

Also, no offense meant, but your type of people disgust me because you preach a care for children but would do all you can to stifle their growth in to mature, educated and responsible adults.

You seem to be disgusted over a premature conclusion. Also, try not to be disgusted by anyone you exchanged only a few lines of text with. Regardless of what they say, really. It stifles your personal growth and prevents you from meeting interesting people.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399873)

You can't come here, with a story about overbearing censorship in England still on the homepage, and expect a polite response to an opinion in favor of censorship, especially after you called anyone opposing censorship naive. You are indeed an idiot or an asshole, but let's not assume malice. Anonymity just enables people to provide you with the feedback that you would otherwise be deprived of. Be thankful for it.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399973)

Okay, I'll play ball. Different AC.

This should be an indicator that you are proposing something that steps on the rights of others, yes. Regretfully their reaction tends to be the standard rules of engagement these days; don't stand up for the rights of others except when they are rights you appreciate, and then overreact in ways that don't inspire common dialogue. End result: steady decline of rights for everyone, because most of us are happy to allow rights we don't personally exercise to be tread upon if it's accompanied by the right special interest poison pill.

I have two adorable nieces. Their father was part of a security detail in rehabilitating a pedophile. But I'm also a technology guy. No amount of love for those girls changes the fact that holistically censoring child porn is a pipe dream. If you need an example of the type of infrastructure and policies needed to support this model, please take a good look at what China is doing, and the other social problems that accompany that kind of infrastructure. (this is not a smoke screen for the bad crap we do that China doesn't)

At the end of the day, it's a variant of AB fallacy. "x is bad. (law/policy) y helps stops x. Therefore y is good." Doesn't factor in what we're sacrificing for y and whether that is good, and is often accompanied by two collieries: "people who disagree with y are bad" or "people who disagree with y support x".

Re:And this is a good thing how? (2)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44400111)

Very insightful. So far, the debate has been enriching for me that I actually truly regret proposing that child porn should be blocked for everyone. It might actually be a bad idea. But, for the life of me, I can't put my finger on why exactly.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44400333)

I think the discomfort boils down to the fact that your goal can't be reached without doing damage along the way. That doesn't mean you stop aspiring toward marginalizing child pornography; it just means you have to tackle other aspects of the problem. (which is what some of the others have tried expressing, just less politely)

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44400373)

(which is what some of the others have tried expressing, just less politely)

'have tried' is crucial here. Because I noticed it, but just won't pick up on that if both the eloquence and intention is lacking. There has to be a minimum to work with.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44400465)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

My name is Anthony Garcia (0x076F9E89), and as grand parent says you are a naive person that thinks that having two brats means you're justified in taking the same "protect the children" knee-jerk reaction that Cameron does. Once the surveillance state is fully implemented you will be the type of person who allows it to happen. Risk of child porn is at best irrelevant because most of it appears in .onion websites. I have never seen any kind of child porn whatsoever, through any medium, in my entire life.

Even if I was the type of sick bastard that wants to find it, I doubt I would without the assistance of tor. Which these filters probably won't have any effect on. As for websites telling people to be violent that is just as irrelevant as the child porn websites. Violent people are going to be violent people regardless. Unless you're referring to the websites that tell people to not put up with their government's asshattery. In which case you are rather contradicting yourself by saying you're a proponent of liberties for all.

Point is, there is no situation anywhere where censorship deserves anything but outright dismissal. Nevermind actually taking a moment to discuss it seriously.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlHz/5sACgkQXprtVgdvnolfgwCgu0ZJnqxBM9sqUHqRUTEGJxXN
5yIAn1mBtiIsKI6BihGYurBJ7MNvpnbz
=Yi/b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399603)

And your reply doesn't present a single refutation of an argument. First you appeal to yourself as an authority given by your "good standing" as a parent and profession, then you appeal to the tone of the retort and not the message.

The internet can be a wild west, as it already is. Viewing any exchange of information as an illegal activity sets a dangerous precedent, one that isn't worth the potential benefits of "protecting" children or "society" it might offer. The problem you mention is indeed a challenging one, because censorship often falls into a binary category as mission creep will inevitably rear its head. The UK already blocks more than just child porn with its "just for child porn, honest!" cleanfeed system.

Congratulations on your soon-to-be new arrival.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44399693)

And your reply doesn't present a single refutation of an argument. First you appeal to yourself as an authority given by your "good standing" as a parent and profession, then you appeal to the tone of the retort and not the message.

I did that more because I was (indirectly) accused, It wasn't a reply on his content. And yes I appealed to the tone, for me it's pretty much a basis for any normal talk.

The UK already blocks more than just child porn with its "just for child porn, honest!" cleanfeed system.

I'm terrified actually, for this over-use/misuse.

Congratulations on your soon-to-be new arrival.

Thank you very much indeed. It's a girl, another one to worry about. :)

Re:And this is a good thing how? (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#44399647)

Right now the internet is often a unregulated wild west

Just like the air. Imagine that: When two people meet and talk stuff, the air faithfully conveys acoustic signals between them! Completely regardless of the contents! If one of them says "let's kill my neighbor", the air does nothing! Surely this situation can't be tolerated anymore?

Re:And this is a good thing how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399867)

Surely this situation can't be tolerated anymore?

You're absolutely right! I suggest we ban air right away.

While we're at it, let's ban DiHydrogenMonOxide [dhmo.org]. It's full of ATOMS!!!

Wait a minute... Ain't air full of atoms too? Maybe we should just ban atoms.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (3, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | about 9 months ago | (#44399821)

I'm an active web developer and proponent of liberties for all.

Then why don't you use an ISP that offers filtering and ask them to turn it on for you?

That way everyone gets their liberties and you get your filtered Internet. Why should an entire nation be bound to your desires simply because you can't be bothered to switch ISP?

Re:And this is a good thing how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44400295)

A free market solution!

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44400423)

That may be a solution for me. I'm seriously considering OpenDNS. But the original point was that I was hoping that blocking the child pornography would affect the demand. Or maybe even nullify the supply. But I am very much aware this has huge disadvantages.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

jimicus (737525) | about 9 months ago | (#44400445)

Depends where you are in the world - in the UK child porn is already blocked, for instance.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (4, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | about 9 months ago | (#44399191)

I'm afraid that all ideas do _not_ deserve equal review or attention, when the issues are so clear. Such censorship is expensive, ineffective for its most vaunted goals, and immediately prone to _enormous_ abuse to track or censor political and social speech. Wasting time in the middle debating subtleties lends legitimacy to very dangerous practices, such as deep packet inspection used to monitor speech and writing wholesale and aggregating the data into very dangerous histories on individuals and groups.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44399589)

I'm afraid that all ideas do _not_ deserve equal review or attention,

Probably true, although that argument has been misused in the past to dismiss the other's point of view from that start.

...when the issues are so clear. Such censorship is expensive, ineffective for its most vaunted goals, and immediately prone to _enormous_ abuse to track or censor political and social speech. Wasting time in the middle debating subtleties lends legitimacy to very dangerous practices, such as deep packet inspection used to monitor speech and writing wholesale and aggregating the data into very dangerous histories on individuals and groups.

What time is wasted having that discussion? I agree with you that the extremity is a terrible thought, but you're suggesting that _any_ filtering immediately equals the thought police. Are you sure there isn't a grey area?

Undemocratic! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399197)

Nobody is forcing you to look at child porn or so called hate speech - If something offends you, you are free to avoid or ignore it. But forcing everyone else to follow your standards is strictly undemocratic.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 9 months ago | (#44399223)

implying that 'it's so absurd we shouldn't be discussing it'.

Sounds good to me.

The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we?

No.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (3, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 9 months ago | (#44399455)

The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we?

No.

I want child-porn blocked. For everyone.

And you don't care what else gets blocked along with it. And you're also a hypocrite, because you said "This discussion should be had extensively and without prejudice. Without sentiments like 'will someone pleeease think of the children'.

I want sites blocked telling people actively to be violent. The whole thing is, what are exactly the limits there, how do we establish those boundaries? And enforce them?

Well, you could ban such sites, and then you'd drive your Neo-Nazis underground like Germany has. Then you can pretend you've stamped them out, like they do. Or, you know, you could let people say crazy shit on the internet so that it's easy to find the crazy people.

Outright dismissing any sort of censorship is naive.

Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44399521)

And you don't care what else gets blocked along with it

Terrified actually.

and then you'd drive your Neo-Nazis underground like Germany has

Valid point.

Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.

I'm just not sure. But at least we're discussing it.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 9 months ago | (#44399609)

Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.

I'm just not sure. But at least we're discussing it.

I'm tired of discussing it. All of what I've said above has been said to fucking death, and all of what you've said, too. Unless you have something novel to say, there is no value whatsoever in having the discussion.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44399749)

Unless you have something novel to say

Little chance of that, I must admit. Still, maybe the whole UK thing added something new to the table. Apparently, if we don't present alternatives beyond "Not gonna happen", it's going to happen anyway.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399897)

Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.

I'm just not sure. But at least we're discussing it.

I'm tired of discussing it.

Then don't.

All of what I've said above has been said to fucking death, and all of what you've said, too.

New people are born all the time. Not everyone was around for the discussions you are so sick of. The fact that you are burnt out shouldn't stifle debate among those that want it.

Unless you have something novel to say, there is no value whatsoever in having the discussion.

Every interesting debate I know of is at least thousands of years old. Nothing you have ever thought has been novel. Get over yourself.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399499)

Why do ideas scare you? If you don't think society in general can be trusted with information, perhaps a life of recluse is more appropriate for your viewpoints.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

cablepokerface (718716) | about 9 months ago | (#44399767)

Why do ideas scare you

Of course they don't. How did you figure?

If you don't think society in general can be trusted with information

I am not worried about most people. Most people never need worry. Luckily.

Re:And this is a good thing how? (1)

mpe (36238) | about 9 months ago | (#44400433)

I want sites blocked telling people actively to be violent.

Does that include *.mod.uk? How about anywhere which allows user comments, including slashdot?

Reailty check (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399085)

I hate to be on the government's side when it comes to arguments, but the government is right on this matter. Internet companies had years to get their acts together and offer a workable filtering solutions for the masses. What has the IT industry mainly been doing to address this real problem? Nothing really, but they have been stead-fast in finding ways to fatten their profit margins.

All the major search engines are guilty with this regard. Instead companies like Google pour millions in to silly things like Glass and ignore the real maturity issue facing the web. I believe the government has been more than accomodated and permitted these companies to flourish, but enough is enough. If the IT industry isn't going to take responsibility for the torrent of information they've exposed children to, then it the government's duty to do something about it.

Re:Reailty check (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399215)

I hate to be on the government's side when it comes to arguments, but the government is right on this matter. Internet companies had years to get their acts together and offer a workable filtering solutions for the masses. What has the IT industry mainly been doing to address this real problem? Nothing really, but they have been stead-fast in finding ways to fatten their profit margins.

Are you really trying to argue some anti-corporate spin into the same sentence with pro-censorship? My head is spinning.

They haven't worked on a filtering solution because that would be ILLEGAL and IMMORAL, you stupid fuck.

Re:Reailty check (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 9 months ago | (#44399255)

Internet companies had years to get their acts together and offer a workable filtering solutions for the masses.

There already exist solutions for this type of garbage, even if they're not offered by ISPs. And really, none of this censorship nonsense is even necessary.

Re:Reailty check (3, Informative)

Opportunist (166417) | about 9 months ago | (#44399505)

How on earth is it an ISPs responsibility or even prerogative to decide what content to deliver and which one not to?

How the fuck do you dare to push the responsibility for your children on someone else? Did the nanny state reach that level already that people feel entitled to someone else taking care of their responsibilities?

Re:Reailty check (3, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#44399709)

What has the IT industry mainly been doing to address this real problem?

Problem? What problem? The problem of a communication network working as desiged?

All the major search engines are guilty with this regard.

Guilty of what? Are you saying that the major search engines are hiding these results from the police? And if not, the police can simply lift their fat lazy asses and act on the things that everybody else sees.

Re:Reailty check (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44400095)

Internet companies had years to get their acts together and offer a workable filtering solutions for the masses. What has the IT industry mainly been doing to address this real problem? Nothing really, but they have been stead-fast in finding ways to fatten their profit margins.

There exist classes of problems in society, that are easy to complain about, but don't have any easy or cheap solution. The english word is "predicament". What has the IT industry been doing to address this problem? They studied it and determined that the cure is worse than the disease. End of discussion.

Surely the polacks must have had an organization before 1990 similar to the Stasi; maybe ask them what to do to address this filtering problem? They must have been experts at it.

No the shortest debate are these 4 words: (2)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 9 months ago | (#44399121)

Only cowards use censorship

Re:No the shortest debate are these 4 words: (1)

rysiek (1328591) | about 9 months ago | (#44399805)

No, that's the shortest argument against it. And while I appreciate the sentiment, it is quite important to keep the debate around this topic on a level that allows for technical, philosophical and economy-based arguments to be made, otherwise we land up in a mud slinging contest ("you're a coward!", "oh yeah? well you're a terrorist-paedophile!") that anti-censorship folk would probably lose.

The best internet filter (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 9 months ago | (#44399147)

I've invented the best, most effective and cost effective internet content filter ever devised. Concerned as any parent is about what my son could be doing on the internet I set about thinking of a system where I could prevent him from getting interested in Midget porn or gaining the skills to build a meth lab in my basement. After many weeks of planning and development I finally implemented my system and it has worked flawlessly ever since. How does my flawless system work? I placed the computer in the living room and then faced the monitor towards the open room. Amazingly, he seems reluctant to go to sites that I'd disapprove of now. It's great what actual parenting can do...

Re:The best internet filter (1)

beaverdownunder (1822050) | about 9 months ago | (#44399169)

I'd +1 except for the last few days attempts at 'spending' mod points haven't had any effect for me -- anyone else experiencing this problem?

Re:The best internet filter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399221)

Your goverment is filtering your mod points!

Re:The best internet filter (1)

houghi (78078) | about 9 months ago | (#44399369)

Reluctant is the right word. This is what your kid might be doing:
1) Turn off the showing of images in the browser.
2) Google for e.g. adult stories [google.co.uk]
3) start reading e.g. this (NSFW !!!!) [literotica.com] and with the search, you find much more.

Hey, perhaps you run Linux, so he can use lynx or any other text based browser, so you, on the couch, won't be able to read it. ;-)

I used to get around the age restrictions at the movies by buying the book. When I later saw the move, I can tell you that the book was WAY worse (or perhaps just my imagination).

That said, you are doing the right thing: parenting.

Re:The best internet filter (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 9 months ago | (#44399733)

2) Google for e.g. adult stories [google.co.uk]
3) start reading e.g. this (NSFW !!!!) [literotica.com] and with the search, you find much more.

Reading is good for a kid! Pity that these things tend to be not exactly Shakespeare.

Re:The best internet filter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399517)

This is just ignoring the issue, and once he is away from the house at college or you leave him home alone for a few days, the binge will begin.

And then it will become a game to see how well he can hide it form you, and you won't know what he is up to, then you will become more paranoid, and it doesn't address the root cause. That teenage boys like naked girls, deal with it.

Re:The best internet filter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399911)

Until he learns about Alt-Tab.... good luck with that.

Re:The best internet filter (2)

Ardyvee (2447206) | about 9 months ago | (#44400145)

Yeah that certainly works. Unless you decide to leave him alone at home, then he won't be that reluctant, will he? I say this as somebody who has the computer in an open room. Just as a little experiment, install some sort of monitoring software, leave him alone and see what he visits. And then proceed to do nothing about it because you shouldn't be having such software there in the first place, except now you know whether or not what you have been trying works or not.

For what it is worth, I think this is one of the best solutions. I read somewhere else where basically the parent managed to gain such respect that even if he was not looking the kid would refuse to browse into certain websites/look for some content (when a friend asked, at least) because the kid thought his dad wouldn't be okay with it, thus he decided against it.

No problem. (1)

Fuzzums (250400) | about 9 months ago | (#44399183)

If such filters were very accurate, it would be great.
Only if it was opt-in of course.

Filter all articles and sites related to [Microsoft|Linux|Apple]
Filter content of [repidlicans|democrats], [gristians|atheists|muslims|Buddhists|other].

Internet would entirely consist of unicorns and kittens!

Comercial about censorship (5, Insightful)

ADRA (37398) | about 9 months ago | (#44399257)

I want to make a commercial about censorship and it sould go like this: There is a debate between two people arguing about censorship. The first is arguing for censorship about saving children blah blah. When its time for the detractor, he says one word and gets his mic cable audibly removed. You see him talking, but no words. Thin in a large caption "It will Happen" across the screen before a fade out. Done.

Re:Comercial about censorship (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399497)

Might want to flip that around, so the proponent of censorship is the one getting the mic ripped away from them. It's more likely to get the pro-censorship people riled up about being censored and perhaps they'll get the irony of that.

Re:Comercial about censorship (1)

rysiek (1328591) | about 9 months ago | (#44399915)

Especially that the censorship opponent will be immediately labelled "terrorist-paedophile", so it's a "good thing" they can't voice their "evil" opinion, right?

Re:Comercial about censorship (1)

mpe (36238) | about 9 months ago | (#44400317)

I want to make a commercial about censorship and it sould go like this: There is a debate between two people arguing about censorship. The first is arguing for censorship about saving children blah blah. When its time for the detractor, he says one word and gets his mic cable audibly removed. You see him talking, but no words.

Or how about whilst the first is midway through the second pulls out some wire cutters and snips the first's cable.
Then maybe saying something like "Alas per $first, he never read Hamlet."

David Cameron (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399415)

I have children, and IMNSHO David Cameron is a technologically challenged idiot. If he wants us to "think of the children", maybe we should remember that one day they'll grow up, and will then be living living in a society being brainwashed into thinking censorship is OK. If *that* is not "corrupting the minds of our children", I don't know what is.

Write your congressman (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 9 months ago | (#44399491)

We need to Polish our laws.

Re:Write your congressman (1)

Dominare (856385) | about 9 months ago | (#44399945)

Honestly, with this latest policy one has to wonder what in the world the UK is cumming to.

Re:Write your congressman (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44400449)

Honestly, with this latest policy one has to wonder what in the world the UK is cumming to.

Well, by the sounds of it not internet porn anymore

Truth in governing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44399537)

What a wonderful world it could be policy proposals were made honestly. Pornography censorship is a smokescreen for restricting dissent.

Shouldn't have filters anyway (2)

CanadianMacFan (1900244) | about 9 months ago | (#44400207)

Besides not being 100% reliable I don't think the government should be filtering any media (books, Internet, radio, TV). I don't want an elected body to force their morals on me and my family. Every household should be able to enforce their own standards. I would have no problem if the government forced the ISPs to provide a filter that people could opt in to which allowed them to customize exactly the content that was prevented from being shown. It would have to be completely open and transparent. So if someone clicked on the option to prevent sexually explicit material then they would be able to see a list of sites that would be forbidden and a list of keywords that would cause pages from downloading. Maybe even going so far as to allowing each household (user?) to white list sites and keywords.

That being said I do believe that some material should not be available but I think the best way to stop it is have people report it to the police when it is found. Then have the authorities target the creators and distributors of such content.

The danger to free speech is too great by placing filters in place.

Think of The Children (2)

PPH (736903) | about 9 months ago | (#44400271)

The world is a dangerous place. You must protect your own children from those dangers while preparing them to deal with them as they attain independence. Don't expect us to do your parenting for you.

You are either free or you are not (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#44400361)

There are not shades of grey with freedom, despite what the filthy shills claim here and in other places.

Take 'Freedom of Conscience'- one of the key freedoms in English-speaking nations, but a freedom almost entirely disguised from understanding by the sheeple as a result of propaganda from organised religion sources. How many times, for instance, have you read FAUX outrage on Slashdot about Census questions on people's religious beliefs, claiming honesty in answering is a LEGAL requirement. The owners of Slashdot, as with mainstream media in general, constantly ensure their naive readers are unfamiliar with the what 'Freedom of Conscience' actually means.

Freedom of Conscience means your religious/spiritual beliefs are YOURS, and require no justification of any form. You cannot lie about your spiritual beliefs, for you are entitled to formulate and change them however you so desire. It is CONCEPTUALLY impossible in an English speaking nation to compel a person to reveal their current spiritual position.

No, I *am* addressing the issue of Poland's action in defence of Internet freedom. They are seeking to ensure Internet freedom has the same conceptual power as 'Freedom of Conscience' (which, ironically, Poland lacks, being a slave state of the Church of Rome). Poland's current bosses are STATING that it doesn't matter what person X thinks about the mental activities of person Y. Law, and law alone designates certain activities illegal- and then only activities that represent DIRECT harm against others.

Tony Blair is introducing Sharia Law into the UK. While racists think this is a Muslim thing, it is actually the ultimate desire of ALL the powerful organised religions in Britain, especially the Church of England. For instance, activism by the Church of England meant that ALL (no matter how vanilla) 'hard-core' pornography was highly illegal in the UK until the rise of the Internet made such control hopeless. It is the stated goal of the Church of England to return Britain to a hard-core porn free situation.

But, as the Polish leaders stated, this has NOTHING to do with porn. Anti-porn activists (mostly extreme perverts with close association to child molesters- see Stuart Hall and Jimmy Savile for examples- these two monsters were favourites with all the main churches and children's charities in the UK) provide evil politicians like David Cameron with apparent popular support. Banning porn then becomes the usual 'thin end of the wedge' tactic.

But Tony Blair is looking to use Britain as an example for the rest of the world. Blair wants his legions of dictators to use his example as justification to their people as to why the Internet MUST be effectively closed down to ALL non-state approved activity. If Blair had been in politics during the late 18th/early 19th Century, slavery would still be legal today. Britain's principled stand against slavery doomed the practice. Blair, on the other hand, would have ensured the whole world heard that Britain KNEW slavery was correct in principle. This is the consequence of sufficient influence.

Poland's current leaders (before Blair and his mates invite them to take another plane ride) know the world is staring into an abyss. They know the ultimate enemy of evil is freedom- real freedom experienced by people that monsters like Blair and Murdoch can otherwise so easily convert into sheeple. Poland still has some in politics that remember the 'recent' history of Europe, East and West, and want to respect and preserve the remarkable changes that occurred after the horrors of WW2.

They will lose. Blair is all powerful and his influence grows daily. His people head Britain's three main political parties, allowing Blair himself to operate on the world's stage as the ultimate manipulator. Censorship in Russia has exploded again, allowing Blair's No.1 ally, Putin, to operate targeted take-down operations against any internal enemy. Poland's good people don't stand a chance. Sure, they don't have to comply today. But in two years time, when Blair's termination of Internet freedoms in in full swing, they will have no choice.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...