Should the government be allowed to censor the internet? Any opinons or thoughts?
Um, how could the government censor the internet?
Which government? Not that it really matters, my opinion is, absolutely not.
Easy one-step assembly instructions.
Pour Beer A in Uncle B.
I don’t think that they should, but some might support government efforts to censor psychics over the internet…right slythe?
I’m still hung up on the part of which government could put limits on the content of the Web, which after all is World Wide. Somehow, I don’t see either the UN or the WTO taking this one on. 
I read somewhere that the government of China employs thousands of people to seek out and censor internet content for their citizenry. Seems some dissident Chinese have used chats, email, and message boards in order to plan and further their anti-government causes.
There’s an article in today’s New York Times on government-mandated internet censorship in China. It talks about those whose job it is to be “editors” in places like chat rooms, and remove messages that are overly critical of the government, etc. I think this just further proves the crappiness of the Chinese government, to use the colloquial.
China’s not the only government that does it, folks…Australia does too, IIRC. I need to look up the cite, but there was a law passed that censored obscene material that originated from outside Australia, or something like that.
As for the OP…gotta say no. Free speech all the way, folks. (Even if I violently disagree with it, like that abortion doctor “hit list” that got yanked a while back.)
“Jesus Mary Joseph…you’re a biker chick!” - co-worker, upon hearing of my tattoo.
I doubt there’s going to be much debate on this one. I haven’t seen anybody here come forward and say, “Hooray for censorship! Yes, the US government should ignore the First Amendment and censor the Internet!”
Well, heck. I’ll try. Yes, the government should censor the internet. Not with prior restraint, of course, but rather after the fact to the extent one of the many laws we have restricting speech has been broken. That is to say, the government should do exactly that censorship on the internet that it does off the internet.
The production, dissemination or possession of pornographic images of children should be illegal. I don’t think too many people will disagree with that.
In real life, it is securities fraud knowingly to disseminate false information about a security for purposes of manipulating its price. It should also be a crime to disseminate such misinformation on the internet. I don’t know yet whether the liability should reside solely with the person or people who originate the false information or if the “publisher” of the information (stock-chat hosts) should also face liability.
People who use the internet to disseminate classified information against the national security interest should face the same jeopardy that they do if they publish it in a newspaper or sell it to the Russians.
A person who violates a state’s rape-shield law over the internet should face the same jeopardy as if the violation took place in a more traditional medium. (As it happens, I think rape shield laws are/ought to be unconstitutional. But if they’re not, they should be equally applicable to the internet.)
One of the problems, of course, is jurisdiction. For example, if the Washington Post wanted to publish a rape victim’s name, they can avoid jeopardy in most cases by failing to have a presence in the state where the victim resides. The entire idea of a “presence” on the internet is more ephemeral; just ask the people arguing about sales taxes on internet commerce.
So is there anything to discuss yet on this issue?
Livin’ on Tums, Vitamin E and Rogaine
I don’t know what my position is. However, FWIW, I’m reading a very interesting book: “Code and Other laws of Cyberspace”, Lawrence Lessig, ISBN 0-465-03912-X. I haven’t goten far enought o decide whether or not I agree with him, but he raises some intersting questions and discusses them well.
jrf
Actually, I’ve been wondering what the appropriate Internet analogues to rules regarding anti-porn laws in the offline world, particularly those that have to do with exposing kids (or the unsuspecting general public) to adult porn.
The motivation for this question is that any four-year-old can access sites that make Penthouse look like a Baptist Sunday School handout, while it would surely be illegal to print the stuff out and physically hand it to the neighbor’s four-year-old (or one’s own, for that matter).
First, is anybody out there knowledgeable in what the rules are offline? For instance, if I were that sort of pervert, could I be jailed for printing out some of the more extreme stuff available online without showing any Adult-Check ID, etc., putting a cover page over it saying ‘Dirty Pix Here - Don’t Look if Under 18 or Easily Offended’ and posting them:
a. on an elementary school bulletin board;
b. on a high school bulletin board;
c. on the bulletin board at the supermarket;
d. on telephone poles at random, all over town.
My guess is that any of the above would get me busted. IMO, the last two items on the list are fairly analogous to the Internet: you don’t know who’s going to happen by the supermarket bulletin board, or the telephone pole; most passersby will be adults, but some may be kids. You’re telling them not to look, but you’re posting the stuff in a way that doesn’t otherwise prevent them from looking. And in either case, sufficiently vigilant parents could prevent the kids from seeing the dirty pictures.
So: (1) which of 1-4 above will get me busted?
(2) If I can get busted for #3 or #4, why can I get away with essentially the same thing on the Internet that will land me in jail in RL? And
(3) if #3 and #4 aren’t reasonable analogies to the situation with Net porn sites, why not, and what would a better one be?
As a parent, I have a tough time with this one. Certainly pornography ought to be censored to some degree. I’m alarmed at how easily it is for anyone, especially children, to access it. For instance, I have an account at AOL and ventured into a chat room one day. Within ten minutes, I had new mail that contained a hyperlink. I clicked it, for curiosity sake, and there it was, in living color. It was that easy to access. And I find that disturbing.
Why? Well, several serial killers have spoken about how pornography fueled their obsession, especially when they had access to it in their formative years. Ted Bundy, John Gacy, Jeffery Dahmer. Dahmer, in his trial, elaborated on his obsession with homosexual pornography. And while he was no doubt loony to begin with, the presence of these images fueled the fire, so to speak. No, you don’t need the internet to have access to it, but it’s a lot harder without it.
I wonder what kind of impact this startlingly easy access to images of every deviance known to man is doing psychologically to very impressionable young people.
Don’t get me started on the freakin’ government censoring everything. Did you know they xxxxxx xxx xxxxxx xx xxxx xxx? Seriously. I read about that at http://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx. And that incident with the xxxx and the Scandanavian xxxx-wrestling team. I’m surpised they managed to cover THAT one up. And of course everyone knows about the xxx xxxx porn xxxxxx naked xxxxxx alien xxxxx xxx xxx clinton xxxxx xxx anal probe!
[This message has been edited by x xxxx]
Lisa, the ease of access that kids have to porn disturbs me tremendously. RL and the Web diverge considerably here - on the Web, kids can get to it just as easily as adults, and can see stuff that you used to have to go to an adult bookstore to see. I don’t think you have to be a religious conservative to find this troubling.
OTOH, I’m suspicious of some of those porn-made-me-do-it claims from the serial killers; Bundy had an alleged ‘conversion’ in his last days, and seemed to be playing his new fundamentalist buddies for all they were worth in a last-ditch attempt to avoid execution. IIRC, he wasn’t the only one to pursue this avenue.
Nonetheless, parents have to watch over their kids a lot more closely these days, even without the Internet. I think parents should have the right to a fair amount of room to raise their children the way they want, within reasonable limits, without having to run around playing Whack-a-Mole to guard against the stuff we insist on throwing at their kids, from porn, hate, and violence on the Internet, to rap lyrics on the radio that turn women and girls into bitches and 'ho’s, to TV programs that make the kids think that the point of being an adolescent is to get lots of sex, and if they aren’t, they’re missing out. (Like they need an extra push this way.)
For some reason, the liberal position has become one of saying that our means of mass communication rightfully belong to those who would manipulate us every which way to make a buck - and parents, if they are concerned, should just work harder to keep this stuff away from their kids. Funny, liberalism used to be on the side of ordinary people in their struggles against corporate money and power.
ABSOLUTELY
I mean come on, look at what people are doing on here… It’d absolutely sick.
Thoughts by Chrissy
“What you think is what you think…but what I think is how it is.”
-me’00
Chrissy, are you referring to the internet in general, or to this message board in particular?
Some days you’re the dog, some days you’re the hydrant.
I wish we could be shielded from bad website design.
But apart from that, anything goes. Protecting children should mostly come down to Parents keeping control of what their kids see. And I wish there was a better way to stop the porn sites from spamming up everything - (the dumb part is, if we want porn, we can find porn. Spam isn’t helping anybody. It’s not like people say …“Hey! There’s nudie pics on the Internet? Wow! Maybe we should pay $15 a week to see them pics, huh? Thank goodness that there message came in my e-mail, otherwise I’d never of thunk it possible!”)
-PIGEONMAN-
Returns!
The Legend Of PigeonMan - By Popular Demand! Enjoy, enjoy!
Agreed, GuanoLad. Save us from bad design. And pop-up windows.
I never touched him, ref, honest!
Since this has taken it’s turn to internet porn, I have to have my say here.
One of my best male friends owns 8 porno sites. Trust me, he’s not a sicko, he’s in it for the money. Making $22,000.00 a month has made me rethink my webdesign business and cash in on the trade myself, but my moral side says no.
I have, with heated debate, discussed with him his home pages and making them less ummm, what’s the word I am looking for here, ummm personal is the only thing I can come up with. Finally he gave in, for a while.
In our discussions, we both agree that the parents must be aware of what their children are doing on the 'net, just like real life. It is not his responsibility to ensure the kids are not accessing his sites, that is up to the parents to do. Letting your 13 year old boy surf the 'net unattended or having some montoring software is almost as bad as letting your 13 year old daughter walk to the mall knowing she is going to be passing through the worst part of town, all alone.
Internet censorship is a ridiculous idea. Yes there is a lot of bogus and disgusting stuff out there, but the government should not be able to say what I can and can’t see, as an adult. Again, parents need to be aware of what their kids are doing, that’s called being a parent.