Internet censorship

Larry

"Uncle Larry"
It's increasing it seems. Anybody have any thoughts pro or con? Thumbnailed videos on JFK's assassination, a lot of them, when you go to view them, have been removed. Kinda bothered me.
 
Like any media, its full of some great things and full of some awful crap. Magazine stands were too! Its inevitable part of history that it eventually gets censored. My personal view is the internet is great, but I think its suitable some gets censored. I mean do we want our youngens viewing torturing of cats (or people) on youtube?

I'm sure when Gutenburg made his press its was the cats pajamas for getting the word out, and all kinds of messages, both positive and negative. Then the world's first censored started. Who knows, maybe even stone tablets were censored.
 
I kind of hoped the internet would be a last bastion of freedom. What the hell was I thinking?

I wonder if a censorship-free society could even function. I would hope that it would, and wonderfully too, but that's probably naive.
 
I wonder if a censorship-free society could even function. I would hope that it would, and wonderfully too, but that's probably naive.

I couldn't agree more, but I do think that is Utopian. People are too different, and what is ok for some people is egregious for others. Until nobody takes pleasure in (e.g.) torturing cats, parameters of acceptability and decency have to be imposed.

Re JFK: I can't understand why the videos have been removed. It's an historical fact. It isn't nice, but it happened, and it was an event that affected pretty much the majority of people on our planet in one way or another. I can understand why people wouldn't want to see it, but it's easy enough not to click on a link.
 
I kind of hoped the internet would be a last bastion of freedom. What the hell was I thinking?

I wonder if a censorship-free society could even function. I would hope that it would, and wonderfully too, but that's probably naive.

Freedom is more of an idea than a literal experience for us. The net was quite a free place prior to the government deciding that we should all be afraid of the "terrorist" boogeymen. They used fear as a tool to implement huge sweeping controls, monitors, and restrictions to true freedom with almost no oversight, designing it in such a way that they can go after anyone who dares to oppose to shut them up on the grounds of "national security". It's really depressing. Even more so because the same exact tactics are being used to take away our access to weapons which could in theory allow us to take back control from an out of control government. Point to a tragedy, use grief as a vehicle to drive all over us with losses of freedoms and privacy --- repeat.
 
I kind of hoped the internet would be a last bastion of freedom.

How free do you want it though, Lar? That's the tough part. What oversteps one man's boundaries is perfectly acceptable to another.

Torture? Kiddie porn? Incitement to violence and hate? Or just someone turning JFK's head into a canoe?
 
For many years now I have wanted a device that I can hook up to my TV to uncensor everything. I am an adult. I should be able to choose whether or not I want to watch something. It should not be determined for me.
 
How free do you want it though, Lar? That's the tough part. What oversteps one man's boundaries is perfectly acceptable to another.

Torture? Kiddie porn? Incitement to violence and hate? Or just someone turning JFK's head into a canoe?

I'm too much of an idealist. Of course I want it totally free, kitty torture and all. When I want to research something, I want as many views as possible. Now I can only see what someone decides is OK. Yea, I kinda hate that. Wouldn't this be a "freedom of the press" or first amendment violation?

Everything in life is a double edged sword, capable of good or harm. We need water, but too much will kill you. Should we ban water? That's absurd. Everything is exactly like that. If people are too freaked out seeing kitty torture...I would assert that those individuals are not well equipped to deal with reality all the way. These people are not to be admired for that trait IMO. Sure kitty torture is bad, but guess what, it goes on. Life is tough and you can't stick your head in the sand. How can you deal with it if you can't even acknowledge it?
 
I guess,just as long as you apply the "reasonable man" rule to free speech and freedom of the press.If you were truly free to say what your wanted,where you wanted,then you could go into a crowded theatre and scream "FIRE".

What happens when you do that?Is it likely that some people with be injured or killed in the ensuing rush to get out?Was there a reasonable expectation that someone would be injured or killed? Of course there is.

But thankfully, you can't do that legally,and would be both civily and criminally liable. .There has to be some common sense application of restrictions,and laws,decided upon by reasonable men.Once those laws or restrictions,become unreasonable,then people have the right to change them,by due process.

Is it a perfect system.....hell no.Show me one that's better.

Steve B
 
How free do you want it though, Lar? That's the tough part. What oversteps one man's boundaries is perfectly acceptable to another.

Torture? Kiddie porn? Incitement to violence and hate? Or just someone turning JFK's head into a canoe?

It should be the same rules as we aught to have for everyone on or off the internet: Don't hurt other people or their property. Anything else is not the government's business, and they shouldn't be breaking privacy of everyone in order to catch the bad apples. Those things listed are crimes in their own right, and should be dealt with in the same way all crimes are. Due process.

That old Franklin quote about giving up liberty for perceived security comes to mind. Not new concepts we're dealing with here.
 
For many years now I have wanted a device that I can hook up to my TV to uncensor everything. I am an adult. I should be able to choose whether or not I want to watch something. It should not be determined for me.

Sure, agreed.
Now what about for little Johnny InsanePollack Jr. who gets home from school at 3:30 with no parents home? Same rules?
Ok, you may say Mr. Insane Polaack Sr. say 'hey Johnny, no computer while I'm not home". Upon which Johnny abides.....and then goes to friends house at 3:30 to view all the bad vids.

See what I mean?
 
I guess,just as long as you apply the "reasonable man" rule to free speech and freedom of the press.If you were truly free to say what your wanted,where you wanted,then you could go into a crowded theatre and scream "FIRE".

What happens when you do that?Is it likely that some people with be injured or killed in the ensuing rush to get out?Was there a reasonable expectation that someone would be injured or killed? Of course there is.

But thankfully, you can't do that legally,and would be both civily and criminally liable. .There has to be some common sense application of restrictions,and laws,decided upon by reasonable men.Once those laws or restrictions,become unreasonable,then people have the right to change them,by due process.

Is it a perfect system.....hell no.Show me one that's better.

Steve B

There should be nothing illegal about saying the word "fire" regardless the context or volume. The issue should only be if someone is hurt, you're liable for causing the panic. Freedom of speech doesn't need rules if we enforce accountability.
 
Sure, agreed.
Now what about for little Johnny InsanePollack Jr. who gets home from school at 3:30 with no parents home? Same rules?
Ok, you may say Mr. Insane Polaack Sr. say 'hey Johnny, no computer while I'm not home". Upon which Johnny abides.....and then goes to friends house at 3:30 to view all the bad vids.

See what I mean?

Good luck with protecting little Johnny from the world that exists. If he can't get the material he's after one way, he will another. Censorship should be a private family matter and decision, not a government mandate of any kind.
 
Good luck with protecting little Johnny from the world that exists. If he can't get the material he's after one way, he will another. Censorship should be a private family matter and decision, not a government mandate of any kind.

Damn, Watso, I'm starting to like you a little bit. ;)
 
It's increasing it seems. Anybody have any thoughts pro or con? Thumbnailed videos on JFK's assassination, a lot of them, when you go to view them, have been removed. Kinda bothered me.
You have to be more specific. On what site were they removed/censored? If you're looking at Youtube .....​
"YouTube is a video-sharing website, created by three former PayPal employees in February 2005 and owned by Google since late 2006, on which users can upload, view and share videos."​
So yeah, expect some censorship. After all, the people who own/pay for the web sites have the power. And rightly they should. It's their dime.​
 
You have to be more specific. On what site were they removed/censored? If you're looking at Youtube .....​
"YouTube is a video-sharing website, created by three former PayPal employees in February 2005 and owned by Google since late 2006, on which users can upload, view and share videos."​
So yeah, expect some censorship. After all, the people who own/pay for the web sites have the power. And rightly they should. It's their dime.​

This is true. I'm perfectly OK with site owners censoring content, just not government entities.
 
The free and open flow of information and ideas. Some countries don't have it.

An argument could be made that the broadcasting of illegal activities should be censored. But then you'd have to deal with things like this: http://www.dumblaws.com/

If you're in the US, click on your state for a laugh.
 
Good luck with protecting little Johnny from the world that exists. If he can't get the material he's after one way, he will another. Censorship should be a private family matter and decision, not a government mandate of any kind.

Agreed, ....again its a grey area.

And do you mean you're the guy posting those kitty torture vids after all?
 
You have to be more specific. On what site were they removed/censored? If you're looking at Youtube .....​
"YouTube is a video-sharing website, created by three former PayPal employees in February 2005 and owned by Google since late 2006, on which users can upload, view and share videos."​
So yeah, expect some censorship. After all, the people who own/pay for the web sites have the power. And rightly they should. It's their dime.​

Yeah Youtube Har. If the powers that be are telling YT to remove videos, I'm not OK with that. Why should YT remove videos? The more views, the more dollars in ads I thought. I don't believe for a second that the owners of YT are interested in protecting our morality. It's all about the money, everywhere. It seems like they are being told by someone to remove some JFK vids, and who knows what others. Why aren't the kitty torture vids removed? Access to certain info is what is being controlled.

As far as someone yelling Fire! in a theater...yes we have freedom of speech. But people still have to suffer the consequences of their own dumb behavior. I don't understand what that has to do with internet censorship anyway. The freedom to say what you want, and the blocking of information are two different things.
 
Sure, agreed.
Now what about for little Johnny InsanePollack Jr. who gets home from school at 3:30 with no parents home? Same rules?
Ok, you may say Mr. Insane Polaack Sr. say 'hey Johnny, no computer while I'm not home". Upon which Johnny abides.....and then goes to friends house at 3:30 to view all the bad vids.

See what I mean?

I used to do the same thing and turned out just fine. My kid knows the difference between TV, internet, and reality. We let her watch whatever she wants as long as it isn't porn. She is also very respectful, has good manners, and is a mostly A student.

Censorship makes kids curious. Allowing them to see what they want removes that curiosity, and it becomes no big deal. Tell a kid they can't do something and they will. Tell them they can and it isn't as interesting anymore.
 
Back
Top