|
| quote: | Originally posted by ********
A couple points.
1. I am biased because I feel information and data should be free to exchange. Although I find the acts of child pornography and malicious data (viruses etc..) to be very bad. I think those things which are not directly malicious although potentially against some peoples tastes to do so.
I think an opt in filter is OK. Eg. someone can say, no porn, or no child porn, or no viruses, or no illegal content etc.. However, quickly when people start asking for their child porn buffer to be lifted, it may be a clear indicator that maybe this person is somehow involved in child porn or a perv - but they could be writting a research paper on the subject.
However, who exactly is building this filter, - and how much money would it cost.
All in all I'm not in support of a filter--- but one must ask, well isn't reality filtered to begin with? What exactly makes life. Would this filter do anything to take down these sites?
Why doesn't the government just knock down the truely illegal sites? Rather than censor them? |
Child porn is the scapegoat for the law.
In reality, the government wants the free study of alchemy stopped, as governments have for a millennia now.
It is the self studied chemist which bakes up new bombs and drugs, and the internet holds "dangerous" amounts of information on all things. It's okay if you work for them, but independent contractors ARE NOT WANTED!
Have no doubt that this ban will sweep to political deviances, if it hasn't already.
Another question this raises is: If your internet was censored without your knowing and being alerted to it, how would you ever find out?
|
