DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM   

Go Back   DRUMMERWORLD OFFICIAL DISCUSSION FORUM > Off Topic Lounge

Off Topic Lounge All Discussions Not Related To Drumming

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 11-26-2013, 07:01 PM
larryace's Avatar
larryace larryace is offline
"Uncle Larry"
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In beautiful Bucks County, PA
Posts: 13,197
Default Internet censorship

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.
__________________
Now go fetch your shine box like a good little Wumpus.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-26-2013, 07:12 PM
opentune's Avatar
opentune opentune is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 2,877
Default Re: Internet censorship

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.
__________________
Louis
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-26-2013, 07:19 PM
larryace's Avatar
larryace larryace is offline
"Uncle Larry"
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In beautiful Bucks County, PA
Posts: 13,197
Default Re: Internet censorship

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.
__________________
Now go fetch your shine box like a good little Wumpus.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-26-2013, 07:52 PM
Magenta's Avatar
Magenta Magenta is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Gwlad Cymru
Posts: 2,017
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by larryace View Post
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.
__________________
Thinly veiled stiletto
Ladies & gentlemen, I've suffered for my art. Now it's your turn (Neil Innes)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-26-2013, 10:29 PM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,164
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by larryace View Post
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.
__________________
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-26-2013, 10:53 PM
Pocket-full-of-gold's Avatar
Pocket-full-of-gold Pocket-full-of-gold is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Posts: 9,890
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by larryace View Post
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?
__________________
What's the best cape for running away from a gig?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-26-2013, 11:00 PM
MrInsanePolack's Avatar
MrInsanePolack MrInsanePolack is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 1,470
Default Re: Internet censorship

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.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-26-2013, 11:01 PM
larryace's Avatar
larryace larryace is offline
"Uncle Larry"
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In beautiful Bucks County, PA
Posts: 13,197
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pocket-full-of-gold View Post
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?
__________________
Now go fetch your shine box like a good little Wumpus.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-26-2013, 11:15 PM
tamadrm tamadrm is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,650
Default Re: Internet censorship

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
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-26-2013, 11:20 PM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,164
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pocket-full-of-gold View Post
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.
__________________
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-26-2013, 11:26 PM
opentune's Avatar
opentune opentune is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 2,877
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrInsanePolack View Post
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?
__________________
Louis
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-26-2013, 11:26 PM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,164
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by tamadrm View Post
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.
__________________
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-26-2013, 11:29 PM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,164
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by opentune View Post
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.
__________________
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-27-2013, 12:01 AM
IDDrummer's Avatar
IDDrummer IDDrummer is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: I-Dee-Ho
Posts: 3,305
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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. ;)
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-27-2013, 12:29 AM
harryconway's Avatar
harryconway harryconway is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pasadena, California, U.S.A.
Posts: 9,168
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by larryace View Post
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.
__________________
This seat does not recline as per Federal Aviation Regulation 121.310 (f)(3)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-27-2013, 12:35 AM
IDDrummer's Avatar
IDDrummer IDDrummer is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: I-Dee-Ho
Posts: 3,305
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by harryconway View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-27-2013, 01:03 AM
wildbill wildbill is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Midwest - USA
Posts: 3,348
Default Re: Internet censorship

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.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-27-2013, 02:02 AM
opentune's Avatar
opentune opentune is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 2,877
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr_Watso View Post
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?
__________________
Louis
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-27-2013, 02:19 AM
larryace's Avatar
larryace larryace is offline
"Uncle Larry"
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In beautiful Bucks County, PA
Posts: 13,197
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by harryconway View Post
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.
__________________
Now go fetch your shine box like a good little Wumpus.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-27-2013, 02:38 AM
MrInsanePolack's Avatar
MrInsanePolack MrInsanePolack is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 1,470
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by opentune View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-27-2013, 02:43 AM
GRUNTERSDAD's Avatar
GRUNTERSDAD GRUNTERSDAD is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: God's Waiting Room
Posts: 15,393
Default Re: Internet censorship

Censorship will exist as long as my politics or religion differ from yours which is why both are censored on this website. All societies have rules. As for yelling fire, the idea is to prevent injury before it occurs not just hold someone accountable.
__________________
Thank you for sharing my day.
Gretsch Renown
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-27-2013, 03:03 AM
Pocket-full-of-gold's Avatar
Pocket-full-of-gold Pocket-full-of-gold is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Posts: 9,890
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrInsanePolack View Post
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.
Yet you won't allow her to access porn. Why is that removed from the wider point you're trying to make?
__________________
What's the best cape for running away from a gig?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-27-2013, 04:20 AM
harryconway's Avatar
harryconway harryconway is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pasadena, California, U.S.A.
Posts: 9,168
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by larryace View Post
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?
Well, I'm not sure what video you are referring to. I looked up "Kennedy Assassination", and a whole bunch of videos are out there. One's 15 minutes long. So .... why one got pulled? Who knows.
I know one thing that Youtube pulls videos for, is copyright infringement. Could maybe be that.
__________________
This seat does not recline as per Federal Aviation Regulation 121.310 (f)(3)
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-27-2013, 06:56 AM
MrInsanePolack's Avatar
MrInsanePolack MrInsanePolack is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 1,470
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pocket-full-of-gold View Post
Yet you won't allow her to access porn. Why is that removed from the wider point you're trying to make?
Because she is only 14. In real life, violence exists, profanity exists, war exists, torture and murder exists, all of these can be accessed just by watching the news. Any news. Dick Rambone the pool guy, Rock Johnson the cable installer, and Phil Uppersnatch the pizza guy showing up at the same time to Ms. Candy Greasetunnel's house for a 20 minute orgy is not real life. She wants to watch porn when she gets older, fine, but as the father of a young teenage girl it is my duty to make sure that when she decides she wants to date she does not have a corrupt idea of what a relationship and love consists of. I want my daughter to grow up with a sense of what the real world is like, but not as a two bit whore. I am the censorer, the parent, the one who is responsible for raising a productive member of society, not the government or anyone else for that matter. Anyone who wants to tell me how to raise my kid needs to start paying child support. Otherwise they can f***off.

As Watso said earlier, it should be mine and my wife's decision what our daughter is and is not exposed to, not someone else's.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-27-2013, 07:31 AM
Pocket-full-of-gold's Avatar
Pocket-full-of-gold Pocket-full-of-gold is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Posts: 9,890
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrInsanePolack View Post
I am the censorer, the parent, the one who is responsible for raising a productive member of society, not the government or anyone else for that matter.
It's not the parental censorship I'm querying......sounds like common sense from where I'm sitting.

But I can't align this line of thought with the argument you're presenting:

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrInsanePolack View Post
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.
If that's the case, what does it matter who does the censoring? Parent or government, it's all in vain anyway, no?
__________________
What's the best cape for running away from a gig?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-27-2013, 07:42 AM
Dr_Watso's Avatar
Dr_Watso Dr_Watso is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,164
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRUNTERSDAD View Post
Censorship will exist as long as my politics or religion differ from yours which is why both are censored on this website.
Interesting way to put it. I think beyond politics or religion, the root of censorship is often just someone or a group of someones getting offended. It's probably hard to argue against the feeling of taking offense at something that disturbs you being a natural instinct as humans. We (especially some of us) are easily driven towards being passionate about our strong feelings.

In other words, I suspect that perhaps it's more wired in at a base level. Politics and religion are almost just the tools we use to try and enforce our own ideas of what's offensive or not on everyone else. Kind of like our evidence that what we're looking at is truly offensive beyond our own insignificant feelings on the subject.
__________________
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-27-2013, 08:19 AM
MrInsanePolack's Avatar
MrInsanePolack MrInsanePolack is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 1,470
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pocket-full-of-gold View Post
If that's the case, what does it matter who does the censoring? Parent or government, it's all in vain anyway, no?
It may all be in vain, but who determines what and why? That's my job, not theirs. Life is not censored, but entertainment is. What is the point?

Think of it this way, we have a slew of words in the English language that are deemed as bad. Why are they bad? Aren't they only words? To me it is the implied meaning of what is said that can be deemed as bad, not the word itself. When someone says "that car is a huge pile of crap", it is no different than "that car is a huge pile of shit." But yet one is acceptable and the other is not. Are not crap and shit the same thing?

You can't say asshole on TV here. When it is said, the word ass gets through while the word hole is bleeped out. When did hole become a bad word? Who decided that? Same thing with god dammit. God gets bleeped but dammit does not. Are we now censoring god because god is bad? Who comes up with this stuff?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-27-2013, 01:31 PM
Anon La Ply's Avatar
Anon La Ply Anon La Ply is offline
Renegade
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Cyberspace
Posts: 4,767
Default Re: Internet censorship

Once again it's assumed that the government is running the joint when it's just the errand boy.

Most online places are privately owned and each owner decided their own rules and effectively acts as censors.
__________________
YouTube channel

Soundcloud stream
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-27-2013, 03:03 PM
larryace's Avatar
larryace larryace is offline
"Uncle Larry"
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In beautiful Bucks County, PA
Posts: 13,197
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by harryconway View Post
Well, I'm not sure what video you are referring to. I looked up "Kennedy Assassination", and a whole bunch of videos are out there. One's 15 minutes long. So .... why one got pulled? Who knows.
I know one thing that Youtube pulls videos for, is copyright infringement. Could maybe be that.
I was looking for videos that run counter to the Warren Commission report. Oh all kinds of videos pop up, for sure. But if you try to view them it tells you that this video has been removed. There were at least a dozen of them that I tried that were removed. One I tried viewing was called LBJ's wife tells the truth about the Kennedy assassination. That's not a copyright issue like putting a cover song up, that's blocking information in violation of our 1st amendment rights. At least that's my view of the matter. My latest favorite quote is "A patriot is a person who protects his country from his government". Or something close to that.

If the YT owners pulled it....that's different. Their site, their rules. But if pressure came from government sources to pull the videos...I'm not OK with that. That's where a line needs to be drawn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anon La Ply View Post
Once again it's assumed that the government is running the joint when it's just the errand boy.

Most online places are privately owned and each owner decided their own rules and effectively acts as censors.
So humor me a second here. If the government...through untraceable benign channels, put pressure on the owners of YT to pull the vid....are you OK with that?
__________________
Now go fetch your shine box like a good little Wumpus.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-27-2013, 04:34 PM
tamadrm tamadrm is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,650
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRUNTERSDAD View Post
Censorship will exist as long as my politics or religion differ from yours which is why both are censored on this website. All societies have rules. As for yelling fire, the idea is to prevent injury before it occurs not just hold someone accountable.
In retrospect,I should have made my post,clearer ,as I feel some have taken it the wrong way.This is about accountability,but more to do with state of mind,and intent.If your intent was to save lives,and there is actually a fire,then you were acting in good faith.

The example I use ,has been used as an example of the limitations of constitutional freedoms.If someone were to run into a crowded theatre,and yell "FIRE".....there acually has to be a fire,which would represent a danger to all the occupants.In this instance,the person yelling "FIRE",is acting reasonably.and trying to save lives.

If you were to do the same thing,and there was no fire,and no danger to the occupants,the person yelling FIRE,is creating a dangerous condition,and legally,has no right to do so.

Then ,clearly,that person though it was all a joke,and either did,or didn't think about the occupants becoming injured ,during an evacuation.

In that instance,and in that instance ONLY,is the person yelling "fire" acting in an unreasonable manner,and committing a violation of civil and criminal law,with depreved indifference to human life.

You may still think ,that you can still yell fire ,anytime you want,but you'd be mistaken,and there is case law as well as municiple,state and federal laws ,that will bear this out.NY State Penal law "Reckless Endangerment" is one such law.

NYPD officers in the 6 month academy,study city,state and constitutional law,which is fully,1/3 of the curriculum.The example of the man yelling fire,is used as an example of an individual NOT having a right to freedom of speech do so,under all circumatances.

I'm just the messenger.

Steve B
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-27-2013, 05:16 PM
opentune's Avatar
opentune opentune is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: British Columbia, Canada
Posts: 2,877
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrInsanePolack View Post
It may all be in vain, but who determines what and why? That's my job, not theirs. Life is not censored, but entertainment is. What is the point?
It could be a fine line between rules and anarchy. Again to echo one of Steve B's points, its all about what is 'reasonable'.

I see your point, but presumably when your daughter turns off the TV and said she learned certain words (like a-hole...etc.) you had to guide her in their use (or non-use) somehow. Using your point, is that not censorship?

Larry, I saw an in-depth show the other night (with a full laser survey/analysis of crime scene and a skull reconstruction) that pretty much convinced me there was no shot from the grassy knoll and only shots from the direction of the book repository.
__________________
Louis
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-27-2013, 05:57 PM
harryconway's Avatar
harryconway harryconway is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pasadena, California, U.S.A.
Posts: 9,168
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by larryace View Post
If the YT owners pulled it....that's different. Their site, their rules. But if pressure came from government sources to pull the videos...I'm not OK with that. That's where a line needs to be drawn.

Well, I guess you'd need to ask someone at Youtube, then. Merely speculating the who and the why just adds more white noise to an already "conspiracy" laden situation.
__________________
This seat does not recline as per Federal Aviation Regulation 121.310 (f)(3)
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-27-2013, 06:40 PM
MrInsanePolack's Avatar
MrInsanePolack MrInsanePolack is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 1,470
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by opentune View Post
see your point, but presumably when your daughter turns off the TV and said she learned certain words (like a-hole...etc.) you had to guide her in their use (or non-use) somehow. Using your point, is that not censorship?
I don't really think so. My guidance as a parent involves communication, it is a two way street between me and my child. If something comes up that she is curious about or doesn't understand, I do my best to be as open and informative as I can. She then weighs what we have talked about and makes her own judgement call based upon the information given. But in order to have these discussions, she has to be allowed access to everything. I don't want her to grow up with a false sense of reality. The world is a harsh place, and I feel that as parents the only way to prepare our children for it is by not hiding reality from them. Guidance is just that, helping your child understand what is acceptable and what is not. After that the decision is up to them. Censorship is removing something completely, and labeling it as unacceptable for human consumption. It comes prepackaged with the idea that some things are wrong regardless of reason or intelligent thought. I just can't accept that.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-27-2013, 06:50 PM
SquadLeader's Avatar
SquadLeader SquadLeader is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Near Manchester, Great Britain
Posts: 743
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrInsanePolack View Post
I don't really think so. My guidance as a parent involves communication, it is a two way street between me and my child. If something comes up that she is curious about or doesn't understand, I do my best to be as open and informative as I can. She then weighs what we have talked about and makes her own judgement call based upon the information given. But in order to have these discussions, she has to be allowed access to everything. I don't want her to grow up with a false sense of reality. The world is a harsh place, and I feel that as parents the only way to prepare our children for it is by not hiding reality from them. Guidance is just that, helping your child understand what is acceptable and what is not. After that the decision is up to them. Censorship is removing something completely, and labeling it as unacceptable for human consumption. It comes prepackaged with the idea that some things are wrong regardless of reason or intelligent thought. I just can't accept that.
But at the end of the day pornography (normal pornography....with obvious and clear exceptions) is just sex between two consenting adults.

It's your daughter...you must bring her up how you see fit.

But I find it utterly incomprehensible that on the one hand you are saying "no porn", yet on the other you seemingly sound fairly relaxed about things like violence.

My children are now both old enough to decide what they want to do (18 and 21) so I've passed this particular period....but had I taken a forensic look at either of their laptops when they were 14,15, 16 or whatever I would have been slightly more disturbed had I discovered an 'interest' in beheadings than an interest in two people shagging (which I don't mean to imply I would have consented to my kids watching porn I should add)

And I know that there IS a quite clear line between sort of 'acceptable' porn and the nasty stuff but then the same can be said of watching the Sopranos, and moving on to real life beheadings within the Mexican drug cartels online.

Just my thoughts.

I did, to add, take Grand Theft Auto off my son when he was younger as I considered it 'sick'.

I also consider there to be nowhere near enough censorship in modern life both in terms of TV, and the internet. I am no prude by the way.
__________________
I lost my bag at Newport Pagnell.....
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-27-2013, 07:14 PM
MrInsanePolack's Avatar
MrInsanePolack MrInsanePolack is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 1,470
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by SquadLeader View Post
But at the end of the day pornography (normal pornography....with obvious and clear exceptions) is just sex between two consenting adults.

It's your daughter...you must bring her up how you see fit.

But I find it utterly incomprehensible that on the one hand you are saying "no porn", yet on the other you seemingly sound fairly relaxed about things like violence.
My daughter is not an adult. She is not of proper age to consent to sex. She knows what it is and how it works, but is not emotionally grown up enough to know what to do with or completely understand it.

Violence has no age of consent. She must be allowed to understand the horrors of the world, and how to protect herself from it. She must also be able to identify it, and act accordingly when the situation presents itself. After all, kids are targets too.

Kids are not stupid. They know what goes on in the world. I would rather they be informed and prepared than sheltered and clueless. By not teaching our kids about the world, aren't we just setting them up for failure, or a false sense of reality and security at the very least?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-27-2013, 07:45 PM
larryace's Avatar
larryace larryace is offline
"Uncle Larry"
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In beautiful Bucks County, PA
Posts: 13,197
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by opentune View Post

Larry, I saw an in-depth show the other night (with a full laser survey/analysis of crime scene and a skull reconstruction) that pretty much convinced me there was no shot from the grassy knoll and only shots from the direction of the book repository.
The first bullet to hit JFK was in his neck and went clean through. The fatal bullet was a hollow point bullet, based on the shrapnel evidence in the brain, and from the trajectory of the entrance and exit wound, it negates the grassy knoll and the school book depository. In the car directly behind JFK, the SS guys had a rifle loaded with hollow point bullets. Pictures bear this out. Also the SS guys were out drinking till 5 in the morning that day. So they were sleep deprived, and the handling of the rifle was given to a guy who was basically just a driver, and untrained, because the rest of the guys were sleep deprived and probably still buzzed. The mans name was George Hickey. The trajectory of the fatal shot was consistent with a bullet that originated from where George Hickey was standing up in the convertible following the President. The crux of the whole show I saw was that it appears to have been an accident, with George Hickey as the guy who accidentally shot the President. I don't believe the SS would assassinate JFK, if that was their intention, in front of all those people and all those cameras. That's just plain dumb. I do believe that Oswald shot the neck shot. I do believe he intended to kill him. Oswald's bullets went clean through JFK's neck into the Governor, so they couldn't have been hollow point.

If the neck shot was a hollow point bullet, it should have blown the front of his neck out. There was radio opaque material throughout JFK's brain, consistent with a hollow point bullet. Also there were many reports of the smell of gunpowder at street level. A very interesting theory that I wanted to explore more.

The SS's own internal paperwork went missing right afterwards of course. So there are new theories out.
__________________
Now go fetch your shine box like a good little Wumpus.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-27-2013, 08:08 PM
harryconway's Avatar
harryconway harryconway is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Pasadena, California, U.S.A.
Posts: 9,168
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by larryace View Post
The first bullet to hit JFK was in his neck and went clean through. ..... In the car directly behind JFK, the SS guys had a rifle loaded with hollow point bullets. Pictures bear this out. ..... The mans name was George Hickey. A very interesting theory that I wanted to explore more.
That would be this ...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortal_...hat_Killed_JFK
__________________
This seat does not recline as per Federal Aviation Regulation 121.310 (f)(3)
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-27-2013, 08:43 PM
larryace's Avatar
larryace larryace is offline
"Uncle Larry"
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In beautiful Bucks County, PA
Posts: 13,197
Default Re: Internet censorship

Right, that's it Harry. I saw the McClaren documentary a few weeks ago. Very interesting indeed. It makes more sense than anything I've heard. It's the shrapnel found in the brain from a hollow point, and the trajectory that makes this theory so compelling. Although I do find it odd that not one person saw George Hickey fire. That evidence could have been suppressed though. I didn't even know of an AR-15 assault rifle in the following car until a few weeks ago.

It's sure smells like a cover up to me.

There are some inconsistencies with George Hickey's testimony as well as with the head of the SS's testimony which lends further credibility to the theory.
__________________
Now go fetch your shine box like a good little Wumpus.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-27-2013, 09:10 PM
MrInsanePolack's Avatar
MrInsanePolack MrInsanePolack is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Arkansas, USA
Posts: 1,470
Default Re: Internet censorship

The trajectory matches up, that is for sure. There is no doubt that a .223/5.56 HP fired from an AR-15 from maybe 25 yards away would cause that much damage. What I want to know is did anyone recover the bullet casing? I know casings were recovered at the scene, and an AR-15 tosses its case a good ways after the rifle cycles. The casing would have left the car, and the way the weapon works, there is no way for it to not eject the spent case. Also, even though an AR-15 is a highly accurate weapon in the hands of a trained individual, it still requires a competent shooter. The chances of the weapon being accidentally fired and scoring such a precision shot seems a bit iffy to me.

I'm not arguing the theory, actually I find all the different theories quite entertaining and plausable in their own ways. The unfortunate problem is that we will never really know what happened at this point. It is quite interesting though.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-27-2013, 09:13 PM
SquadLeader's Avatar
SquadLeader SquadLeader is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Near Manchester, Great Britain
Posts: 743
Default Re: Internet censorship

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrInsanePolack View Post
My daughter is not an adult. She is not of proper age to consent to sex. She knows what it is and how it works, but is not emotionally grown up enough to know what to do with or completely understand it.

Violence has no age of consent. She must be allowed to understand the horrors of the world, and how to protect herself from it. She must also be able to identify it, and act accordingly when the situation presents itself. After all, kids are targets too.

Kids are not stupid. They know what goes on in the world. I would rather they be informed and prepared than sheltered and clueless. By not teaching our kids about the world, aren't we just setting them up for failure, or a false sense of reality and security at the very least?
Agree with all that but let's be honest here....we're not talking about a 14 year old child being sat in the front of the TV watching self-defence programmes...I'm not exactly sure what that is all supposed to teach them??

We're talking about kids watching gratuitously violent films, and getting stuck into a bit of slaughter on Grand Theft Auto.

Not for a second saying that's YOUR daughter....I'm talking generally....this is what 14 year old kids are doing often (naturally with exceptions).

As I said...I fully understand why you'd not want your child viewing porn. Absolutely. Nor would I (as stated)....the bit I can't understand is that you'd be comfortable with them viewing violence...I don't get that.

But to each their own
__________________
I lost my bag at Newport Pagnell.....
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off




All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Bernhard Castiglioni's DRUMMERWORLD.com