We limit speech on this very message board. No Trolls, no socks, no personal insults outside the Pit.
I find it odd the ‘free speech must reign!’ crowd here are so myopic.
We’re talking about government censorship, aren’t we? Non-governmental censorship is a different topic.
My understanding is that you can encode every number (of an arbitary size) in a quantum computer, at least until you look at it (according to the copenhagen interpretation anwyay).
So any reasonably sized quantum computer is in a very peculiar way goign to contain all the child portn there ever was.
Now you could argue that it is the observer that actually finds out whether the number is there or not. But then that would be thought police.
Furthermore the idea proposed by others that a number is illegal depending on how it is being used just shows how silly the entire concept is.
Let’s make actions illegal instead.
I don’t see why there should be a difference. The SDMB imposes controls on some forms of speech to protect itself, and I would expect a government to do the same to protect the country it’s responsible for.
By that argument, pi should be outlawed, because (if mathematicians are correct about the properties of random numbers and trancendental numbers), then everything that could ever be encoded is in its digits.
Therefore it must be censored (by your argument, if we censor anything at all).
Sheesh. There’s a huge difference between some number string existing somewhere (though not found), and presenting the same specific number string in a way that it’s obviously representing something.
Otherwise, I could just say “Pi” and there you go, all the works of Shakespeare! Everything humans ever published! Kate’s boobs!
Nope, that’s now how censorship laws work, or could possibly work. In order to be accused of publishing Kate’s boobs, your statement would have to be more specific.
There’s obviously a difference in places like the US- the First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring or sanctioning free expression. The First Amendment does not prohibit private organizations from censoring or prohibiting any sort of speech at all.
I have to say that when I saw the comment about banning numbers, I immediately thought of the the DECSS number posted everywhere in protest against prosecuting the guy who discovered and published it. This lead me to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number
Aren’t there restrictions on language that incites hate, for example? (I’m not American so I really don’t know.)
There are laws against language that incites panic or violence or treason, but I don’t think that there are any laws against inciting hatred (in the USA).
As an idealist, I would agree with the concept of no censorship under any circumstances, but as a pragmatist I realize that’s not really possible, at least not now. Instead, it seems like we should always strive to maximize the free expression of ideas to the extent that we can so we can maybe one day reach a more idealized world.
And to clarify what I mean, I would like to believe that, as an artist myself who creates without regard of getting paid for my creations, I’d like to believe that most other artists would also continue to create even if they were not paid for their work. Of course, the real world makes it a bit more difficult than that, where some works of art require very little investment in resources to create, like a poem or a song or a drawing, and some require a significant amount of resources, like a film. I’d like to think that in a world with completely free expression of ideas, people would be happy to donate money to either help create works or as compensation afterward. At least for me, even when I can get free music or free movies, knowing I can get away with it, I still want to do my part to help support it and I will still buy albums, go to concerts, see the movie in the theater or buy it on DVD… whatever.
Or similarly, when it comes to something like national secrets, I’m not really sure what banning sharing them accomplishes. Even if there were no penalty for me if I were to share some secrets I know, I still wouldn’t do it. In fact, I’m kind of scared of the idea of giving secrets to people who only don’t share them with others because of fear of prosecution and not because they understand and value how it affects the security of their country and their fellow citizens. I can see how it sort of makes sense now, since that’s much how the world operates these days, but ultimately, I think the most trustworthy people would be the ones that don’t need that threat of federal prison looming over their heads.
So yeah, at least for now and the foreseeable future we probably need many of those sorts of restrictions, but that also doesn’t mean that just because we may have completely free expression of ideas that all ideas will get spread equally.
No, actually. Only threats or incitements to violence (like “you should kill this person”). You can say “Demographic X should get out of America” perfectly legally.
I entirely agree, and that is why I am against censorship.
Consider the following pseudocode:
N = 1 to infinity
X = 1 to 1000000
isitjpeg = isthisvalidjpeg(digitsofpi(from:N, to X))
if isitjpeg then display renderjpeg(digitsofpi(from:N, to X))
loop
loop
Oh fuck. You’ve just displayed every child porn image that can be encoded in a million digits.
Pi is a paedophile’s paradise.
That’s absurd.
But that isn’t what this is about. The fact that a number can encode something is trivial. What people do with the number is what matters. Context matters.
For example, publishing a number, say 43xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx is no big deal. However publishing
Visa
43xx xxxx xxxx xxxx xx/xx xxx
89xxx
Is something totally different. Why? Because the number can be used by anyone except as a Visa credit card number. Visa, and the CC owner can use the number as a Visa CC but on one else.
The fact that the Visa CC number exists and is used in other contexts doesn’t matter. Same with pi. The fact that some range of digits in pi can be used to display kiddie porn is trivial. It is when you publish those digits and say ‘Use digits x through y and open it as a jpeg and you have a pic of a kid being abused’ that the context changes. It is the action, which you have mentioned, that matters.
The issue with the DECSS wasn’t that the number was published by someone, it was that it was published with the intent of circumventing copy protection. The problem wasn’t the number, it was the way the number was used.
There are a whole lot of things that we limit the use of on a daily basis. For example, you can shoot a gun in certain areas but you cannot run around shootingt wherever you want. You can use a frying pan to cook dinner but you cannot beat the hell out of your wife with the frying pan because your dinner was cold. I see no reason that information should be treated differently. Certain uses are acceptable while others are not.
And, if we are really going down the no censorahip route, it means that everything in your life, from your dick size to your bank account information is open game.
I’d rather not live in that world. But then again I have a lot to be modest about 
So there are some government-enforced restrictions on free speech in the States;), which is the point I wanted to make. Restricting speech is absolutely necessary in some cases for the common good, just as it is with the SDMB. I get a bit annoyed when Freedom Of Speech ™ is held up as an almost sacred virtue when 1) it implies that speech is completely unrestricted, which it isn’t, and 2) it implies that completely unrestricted speech is desirable, which it isn’t, and 3) whatever its benefits, it also allows people to be utter assholes without suffering any consequences. So IMO, the Slashdot poster mentioned in the OP is wrong. Absolute freedom of speech is an unrealistic ideal.
Further to number 3), is there any value in letting people get away with spouting bigotry and hatred? Or is it impossible to have the benefits of freer speech without the drawbacks?
Where to begin?
The idea that most artists would just continue making art without compensation is laughable, but that’s not really the point of the discussion.
As to your point about revealing state secrets, I would also like to live in a world where people are sensible enough not to murder each other. Does this mean we shouldn’t have laws against that? Pretty much any law exists to disincentivise people from doing things the government disapproves of, so outlawing the revelation of state secrets is not censorship.
You didn’t make that point, but the soldier who wrote the book about the Bin Laden raid doesn’t just reveal what happened on that day - he potentially reveals very specific ways in which those special forces work which could conceivably be used against them in future missions. It’s arguable whether that should fall under free speech.
You picked a lousy starting point. Most artists create what they create for their own satisfaction, and never expect or receive payment for anything they do. It’s their hobby, and they are no less artists than those who make a living at it. I have some of my own artwork hanging in other people’s homes, and I find that very satisfying. I don’t care if I never make a dime from any of it.
Or have you just decided that only people who sell their art are artists?
Do you believe it should be possible for artists to make a living from what they do? In that case we need laws to protect them from having the fruits of their labor stolen by others. It’s nice that you do art as a hobby, and if you yourself think so you are definitely an artist, but how do you propose we reward composers, writers, recording musicians and film makers for their work?
I was responding to your statement: “The idea that most artists would just continue making art without compensation is laughable…”
That statement is laughable. I’m sure there are many professional artists who earn their living through their art, and they are certainly entitled to do so, and to have their work protected from theft. Had you qualified your statement in any way suggesting this instead of painting with such a broad brush, I would not have objected to it.
You are right, and the fact that nobody made art prior to the late 19th century when copyrights became widespread proves it. Good job!
Alright, I’ll qualify my statement thusly: the idea that many professional artists, especially in fields where their work is trivially copied, such as writers, composers, filmmakers and recording musicians, will continue to exist without laws in place to protect them from theft is laughable. (I already did qualify the original statement, BTW, I said “most artists”, not “any artists”.)
We’re getting a little off-topic here, but 1) most artists whose work persists were indeed compensated for their work and 2) their work was not as easily duplicated as today. Films and recorded music did not exist, books were expensive to print and composers were mostly also performing musicians. I strongly doubt that Michelangelo or Bach worked for free, but you couldn’t just buy a poster or a CD of their latest work back then - if you wanted something painted/composed by them, you had to get the real thing. The same is not true anymore for many art forms today.