Furtopia | Family Friendly Furry Forum and IRC Chat!
not-so-furry discussion => debate forum => Topic started by: Mylo on July 31, 2013, 03:32:47 am
-
Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom recently announced (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076) that online pornography will be blocked by default by Internet service providers; however, each customer will have the option of opting-in to be able to access pornography (they just have to actively do it).
Generalizing this event to the idea of censorship, what do you all think of the concept? When do you think it is appropriate to use censorship (if ever), not just in governments, but in other entities, organizations, bodies, etc...? Does censorship of certain information produce benefits for the majority that outweigh overt knowledge of the information itself? Are there some things that are just better left unsaid? Or, does the truth reign above all?
Censorship: Is it ever appropriate?
-
I think it's situational dependent. In most cases it would be pretty straight forward in my view. I.E. at home, it should be left up to you what you want to see and your choice to self sensor, or to censor things from your kids if you're a parent. In a public setting, or using someone else's computer, you should certainly sensor yourself out of respect and decency of others and it would be the device owner's choice what they would be ok with others seeing. This would also apply to something like a wifi hotspot owner who wants to maintain a family friendly connection or help prevent the connection from being used for pirating even if you own the device connected to it.
As for ISP's censoring, I'm against that. There's too much variance on who thinks what is appropriate for them to make that kind of call. I was debating a bit on this extending to other companies like TV providers, but an ISP provides the gateway to info available around the globe. TV suppliers provide the actual content. So even if I said they shouldn't censor, it's kind of a moot argument if they don't even have something I'd want anyway.
-
I think it's situational dependent. In most cases it would be pretty straight forward in my view. I.E. at home, it should be left up to you what you want to see and your choice to self sensor, or to censor things from your kids if you're a parent. In a public setting, or using someone else's computer, you should certainly sensor yourself out of respect and decency of others and it would be the device owner's choice what they would be ok with others seeing. This would also apply to something like a wifi hotspot owner who wants to maintain a family friendly connection or help prevent the connection from being used for pirating even if you own the device connected to it.
As for ISP's censoring, I'm against that. There's too much variance on who thinks what is appropriate for them to make that kind of call. I was debating a bit on this extending to other companies like TV providers, but an ISP provides the gateway to info available around the globe. TV suppliers provide the actual content. So even if I said they shouldn't censor, it's kind of a moot argument if they don't even have something I'd want anyway.
Only the government can censor by force,so what see what UK is doing too much of a grey area but an ISP is a private company and can decide for itself what to filter or not. For example I furtopia whale is a public board but has the right not to allow discussion of an explicit nature, drug and alcohol use.
As for the UK law it a grey area because there are good reasons to censor or regulate in case of force and fraud. I.e child pornography, and deception ( comment and search spam , malicious redirection).
-
Near as I can tell, I completely agree with Narei in this issue.
...but an ISP is a private company and can decide for itself what to filter or not.
Every advancement in technology that has led to greater freedom of information exchange has brought with it greater overall freedoms and an increase in quality of life for everyone. Freedom of information exchange is the path that will lead us towards a future of greater prosperity and peace. The internet is so far the greatest advancement in information exchange the world has yet seen. And therefore it is imperative that it not be censored.
While it's true that an ISP is a private company, they do not host the content, they do not make the content, they only provide the vehicle that allows access to the content. So saying they should be allowed to censor is like saying a car company should get to dictate where you are and are not allowed to drive.
-
Near as I can tell, I completely agree with Narei in this issue.
There's something that doesn't happen very often. I thought I felt a bit of a shiver a little while ago. :D (:
-
no, censorship is never appropriate. putting something out of someones reach, making it forbidden makes it that much more desirable.
also they are censoring porn....why? everyone on earth (except test tube babies) was a result of sex, hiding sex from kids? when this wasn't done there were no "omg she's too young" pregnancies we have been raised in a society that teaches that pleasure is a bad thing and should not be had.
pleasure is a terrible thing.
in excess.
the key to "omg, protect the children's innocence" is to make sex an innocent act, not a thing of filth and shame.
when it is readily available, it becomes commonplace, and not a desirable "forbidden act" maybe then, people will moderate their actions for themselves, as I believe is appropriate for society.
-
There are times when censorship is acceptable. This is not one of them.
Apparently the government have decided it's their job to be the collective parents of everyone, doing actual parents jobs for them. Web filtering software isn't hard to get a hold of, hell, at least a few isps provide it for free.
When have you ever used a filtering system that's been effective and accurate? When I was in school, furtopia was flagged as adult content. Byebye younger members. Not to mention the filters will apparently cover more than just pornography anyway
And, it's an opt out system. As far as I remember, a large part of the reason this is being put in place is because evidence was found that one or two people who killed people were found to have accessed child pornography beforehand. I'm not usually prone to paranoia about this sort of stuff, but given that that sort of ridiculous leap of questionable logic has been deemed a good enough reason for the government to impose their views on the entire nation, I won't be surprised when this list of individuals who have opted out is used as evidence in a court room.
Honestly, I'm scared of the implications of this right now. I've never been scared of the place I live before, I don't like it
-
It is never acceptable.
I happen to agree with whtwolf on this.
Once you start censoring some things, the camel has it's nose in the tent. It might take months, it might take years, but before long nothing is sacred.
-
There's a difference between private organizations from saying what they want to have happen as a result of their own services and the governing body setting a mandate. The first is fine. The second is absolutely unacceptable.
-
My vew of censorshup in general can be expressed with
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iY57ErBkFFE
and
Therefore a wise prince will seek means by which his subjects his subjects will aways and in every posssible condition of things have need of governmant and, than they will be faithfull to him.
niccolo machiavelli
"The Prince"
Prime Minister David Cameron of the United Kingdom recently announced (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076) that online pornography will be blocked by default by Internet service providers; however, each customer will have the option of opting-in to be able to access pornography (they just have to actively do it).
This issue in particual disapoiints me. It's an effort by "moral crusaiders" to shame people by forceing them to openly ask for it. It is akin to NSA grand scheme, that you politial and economical enemies will have access your potential shameful actions and use it against you.
"Don't run in the electionm, or we'll tell everybody you like furry porn."
-
Sexual censorship is generally due to religious beliefs. It's the one
thing that everyone thinks about, but not to be talked about.
It is apparently thought that if one reads or looks at such content
they will loose their ability to refrain from wanting it.
I think it's another case where well meaning people are trying to use
censorship to treat a symptom instead of the cause.
Of course one never knows what some organizations are really up to.
So I am against it except where it's needed to protect lives involved
in espionage or war.
-
Small children shouldn't be exposed to adult language and situations, hence the age restrictions for entertainment/cinema. Also Children Only computers in library systems. I do despise the Sonic firewall when I attempt to visit a firearms site and some furry sites. "Forbidden Category..."
-
Personally I think we have this backwards. It's fine to show someone screaming in pain or crying out they don't want to die. Being brutalized or murdered. But you can't show someone taking a shower. That's horribly wrong.
Any censorship is wrong. it should be up to the individual not to a government.
-
Small children shouldn't be exposed to adult language and situations, hence the age restrictions for entertainment/cinema. Also Children Only computers in library systems. I do despise the Sonic firewall when I attempt to visit a firearms site and some furry sites. "Forbidden Category..."
I agree. Small children shouldn't be exposed to adult language and sexual situations.
Censorship for this purpose is a good thing.
Of course this doesn't keep the little eyes and ears from seeing or hearing about
such things from their peers. Parents need to be watchful, and explain these things
to their children when needed. Only learning about life in the playground is almost
always bad.