Two days ago, Google dropped a bomb by announcing its intentions to cease censoring its search engine results in China, partly because the search giant claimed that attempts were made to crack the GMial accounts of Chinese human rights activists. The Chinese government has officially replied to these allegations. Update: More on the infrastructure of the attack.
The Chinese government states that companies, domestic or otherwise, have to abide by Chinese laws. “We welcome international Internet companies to do business in China in accordance with the law,” said Jiang Yu, a spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. She didn’t deny Google’s allegations of cyber attacks directly, but did state that such attacks are illegal under Chinese law.
Jiang Yu further stated that “the Chinese government administers the Internet according to law and we have explicit stipulations over what content can be spread on the Internet”. Of course, this case isn’t about the censoring in and of itself – Google has been active in China for years, and just like many other Western companies and governments, had no qualms about catering to China’s censorship and other totalitarian practices.
Therefore, it seems like Google’s intent to cease censoring search results has little do to with morals, but more with it being a response to the cyber attacks, and I’m sure the fact that Google isn’t as big in China as it is here also plays a role (Google’s share is estimated to be around 30%, half that of its main competitor in China, Baidu).
The cyber attacks themselves were probably routed through the Republic of China (Taiwan for those who don’t know their history). Chinese hackers infect Taiwanese company’s computers with malware, turning them into zombies for botnets, which are then used to perform the actual attacks. Trend Micro states that about 20 million attacks against Taiwanese computers took place in August 2009 alone.
A lot of people seems to think that “freedom of expression” equals “freedom to be offensive”. This is not so. Offensive behaviour, is also regulated by law. I came to think of this because, indeed, sensorship may be a good thing. Not political sensorship. However sensorship of indecent activity. And also, the satanic trend ones sees on the internet, with moderation in favour of distruptive elements; If one cannot moderate a forum, according to conservative values, I do believe making these activities illegal, unless one posesses the funds to run a decent website. If not, all forums are really in the hands of satan, of deviant, and abusers. And if this is allowed, a growing trend of satanic influence will take place.
Thank you for giving valuable new insights about the threatening trend of satanic (anal)sensorship.
Edited 2010-01-14 15:13 UTC
Yeah, well, I like unicorns.
Beware, the devil is in the details!
How dare you attempt to impose your so-called conservative values upon the rest of us. I do not appreciate so-called “deviant” points of view to be invalid and would not see them oppressed for the sake of your so-called conservative values. At one time, you know, enslavement and oppression of certain ethnic groups was considered a conservative value and was believed to be right. Let me guess, if you had been living then you’d have supported that? I’m so sick of these self-satisfied, stuck-up conservatives who believe they are the only ones qualified to judge morality and values, and whose views are typically fueled by a religion of one sort or another. That’s nothing more than a form of imposing your beliefs on others, something many civilizations have tried hard to stop.
Outrage is so cheap these days. Anyway, do you consider the moronic parent comment’s deviant view to be invalid? I do.
OMG it’s the race card! Run!! Surely since some people back in 1800–or even 1950–believed some awful things, nothing that they believed in can be considered valid. In fact, it would be better if we forget about them entirely, and just start right over!
Now here’s the thing I am curious about: I think it would be fair to argue that demanding that the Chinese Communist government stop censorship is an imposition of our beliefs on them, and that their civilization is trying hard to stop it. You could even argue that their views on censorship are fueled by a religion of a sort: Marxism. What say you?
Bravo! Way to go! I see Faux News has taught you well!
How about an attempt at a real argument this time? You know? One that involves the exchange of opinions in a civilized manner instead of derision masqueraded as sarcasm?
A bit stuck? Let me get you started. What does Marxism have to do censorship? I would love to hear you quote a single passage that Marx wrote detailing his ideas on censorship.
Edited 2010-01-15 04:14 UTC
Marx himself, no. After all, he died before anybody thought he was important enough to be censored. But do you really believe that Marxism in 1930 or 2010 is simply the writings of Marx? I don’t. How about Lenin:
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_Conditions
Note the part where he says that people of social conscience, “reformers”, must be destroyed, presumably because they believed that their efforts to make people’s lives less miserable contributed to the lack of revolution. So much for the “if you’re not with me, you’re against me” thing being the domain of biblical literalists.
Since we’re having a civilized exchange of opinions, feel free to disagree. But I think it’s an extreme stretch to argue that most countries that have claimed to be Marxist haven’t favored censorship. That may not be what Marx would have done, but I think it counts for something that none of his adherents have been particularly nice when they actually got to running a country. And it’s not good enough to try to come up with some moral equivalence to the US, since I can read any book I like here, right out of the public library, and without visits from the NKVD, regardless of what is on Fox or MSNBC.
That statement is very obviously incorrect. For somebody who has shown his ability to use Wikipedia at least half decently, your lack of education is showing.
Well, everybody else does, that’s why it’s called Marxism-Leninism. Again, I’d guess a lack of education not helped by watching Faux News.
Do you really think that if the US religious right had it’s way, you could read any book you like? That there wouldn’t be an organized policing of literature and media with sever and violent crack downs on those deemed in violation of “decency” laws? That you wouldn’t get a visit from the religious rights equivalent of an NKVD for “unclean” behaviour? History paints a very different picture.
You don’t even need to look to history to see the kind of oppression the religious right in your own country attempts to exercise, especially in trying to take away the civil liberties of a minority. Look up Proposition 8 in California for a taste of the shape of things to come if you hypocrites ever get any real power.
Here’s the beauty of an elected repreasentative government. You’re right, the far-right are bastards — and I say that as a moderate Republican. But, because they where consistently bastards, they got voted out of power. The Congress, right now, is majority Democratic, and the Democrats obviously hold the White House. If the Radical Right took complete control of the government, would it be Bad? Sure it would. But guess what? With the huge number of centrists and leftists who can also vote, it’s extremely, extremely unlikely that an abusive, right-leaning government would long persist. As we’ve just seen.
And equally, while something like it has happened before, it’d be really, really hard for them to pull of the complete co-opting of the apparatus of government, to enforce their own moral views. At least, not without getting violently hurled from office with a whopping twenty percent of the vote the next time elections came ’round.
I think it’s a little presumptuous to assume that SReilly is a member of the Radical Right and an opponent of gay rights. At least, in the post you replied to, he didn’t say anything that I thought might betray his political leanings.
I’ll grant that Prop. 8 is an imposition of moral values on a minority, and that it’s an embarasment for the U.S. It’s probably even evidence that we need to contain the Radical Right, because they’re dangerous — again, I say that as a moderate Republican. But I don’t think it’s a sign of things inevitably to come. Long story short, sane people out number the Rush Limbaugh fans, even if only narrowly, and I think we at least can handle these idiots.
And equally equally, there are parts of the U.S. where gay marriage is legal; marriage is not a fundamental human right in the same sense that, say, free speech or free association are; and the Radical Right, even if they get Prop. 8 thru, will not be able to go much further (they won’t be able to strip Gays of things that are guaranteed human rights, like free speech or free association, no matter how they try).
Edited 2010-01-15 17:09 UTC
I’m in agreement with you and am happy to hear that not all Republicans stick up for the religious right in the US.
Obviously, what I was pointing out it that if people like OP had their way, we would see serious injustice in the name of “decency”. The whole question of that coming to pass, at least with your current form of government, is naturally hard to imagine. Still, my point stands.
I think jwwf made it very clear what his political leanings are when he said:
That just happens to be exactly the same kind of crap your hear the modern KKK come out with. You might deem my view as presumptuous but unlike jwwf, I have taken the time to learn as much about my enemies as I can and frankly, his dialogue stinks of right wing fundamentalism.
By the way, I think you meant jwwf there instead of me? At least I hope so! 😉
Er, yes, I did.
Thanks.
I’ll just say this: rule of law, minimal government intrusion, respect for individual liberty and avoiding foreign military entanglement have been and should be Republican values.
The Radical Right terrify the hell out of me; I dare call them enemies of democracy. I’m just confident that, eventually, rational and moderate minds will prevail.
I strongly believe in… respect for human reason, I suppose. I certainly believe that those who do present a rational and reasonable opinion do not deserve to have their views entertained in the public discourse. While I certainly don’t think the government should silence them, I think that we’d be all the better if the public chose to disregard the opinions of the radical right, and relegated them to the same role and status as the Flat Earth Society — that of loud, boisterous but essentially irrational fools, whose views carry no weight and garner no respect.
Glad to hear it. Those seem like level headed ideas and although I may not agree with all of them, coming to agreements and meeting in the middle is so much easier when dealing with level headed people.
Personally I’m an anarchist, but I’m also a realist in that I can plainly see that self government and direct democracy are not an option at this time in our development. Although I have seen anarchist communities in action, and have been pleasantly surprised at just how well they work, they are inevitably small scale and it would be very doubtful that they would translate into a larger grouping of people, say the size of a small city.
Oh, a leftist insinuation of racism to intimidate a deviationist. How boring. You might as well call me a Nazi while you’re at it. No need to be shy.
This after all that talk about civilized exchange of opinions and education! Let me ask you: Do you really think that all of the customs and ideas of our grandparents are to be shunned because some of them were racists? That was the logical extension of the comment I objected to; it’s so silly that I felt the need to make a little fun.
If you do think that, where do we draw the line? At what year do we decide that ideas are safe to agree with? Remember, (use your excellent education), that people like Woodrow Wilson were both progressive internationalists and racists. Also remember that England had slavery in 1830. If you’re absolutely must have ideological purity going back a century or two, become a Quaker.
Oh, another thing. Christianity was hugely important in the abolition of slavery in the US, and also the 1950s civil rights era. All I’m saying is, it’s complicated.
Ouch! Godwin’s Law has got to hurt. ;-p
Fnar! Well, KKK members probably claim to be Nazis these days, so by the transitive property of political invective…
You have a point there. It might be time to drop Godwin a line and ask him to clarify 🙂
Edited 2010-01-15 19:16 UTC
Please use your superior education to enlighten me: What did Marx write in oppositon to censorship? And yes, I know that various Continential governments did not like him much around 1840. But quite a few of his books got printed and nobody bothered to have him killed.
I think that is a pedantic distinction, between Marxism and Marxism-Leninism, but if you like, I’m happy to make it.
I notice you have nothing to say about my typical Lenin quote. Sorry if it wasn’t educated enough!
[/q]
Couple of problems with this: Firstly, the you hypocrites part makes me laugh because I am not a theist, much less a member of the “religious right”. Secondly, you sidestep the issue of why this potential issue is so terrible to you, but the actual issue of the historical ideological oppression by governments that called themselves Marxist apparently isn’t.
Marxism(-Leninism) and the “religious right” you talk about are both collectivist ideologies*. Both define certain behaviors as inimical to the health of “the people” and both don’t have any logical point as to where to draw the line as to what measures are too harsh to be used to stop these behaviors. This is because they do not emphasize the importance of the individual; his needs are overridden by the whole.
* ( Yeah, I admit, I heard that on the O’Reilly Factor. Or was it Glen Beck?)
My simple point is this: At this point in history, it is up to Marxists to prove that Marxism doesn’t lead straight to the Kolyma gold mines, not the other way around. If you can find me an example of an important government calling itself Marxist which did not have a secret police persecuting ideological crimes, I’m all ears.
Marx can be quoted time and again as equating censorship with terrorism:
Capital; Book 1, Chapter 14: “”The writer is exposed to the most dreadful terrorism, the jurisdiction of suspicion. Tendencious laws, laws that do not supply objective norms, are laws of terrorism, as they were thought out by the necessity of the state under Robespierre and by the corruption of the state under the Roman emperors. Laws that take as their criteria not action as such, but the state of mind of the actor are nothing else than the positive sanction of lawlessness.”
The writings of Marx are often misunderstood and misappropriated, much like Nietzsche and Christ. Most states that claim to be Marxist have done nothing more than taken the economic model and left the political and social models aside, which always seems to lead to totalitarianism, not matter how good the original intentions. To not make a distinction between Marxism and the twisted offshoots of his ideas is akin to equating Christian fundamentalists with all of Christianity, an obviously absurd and ignorant opinion so if you don’t want to come across as an idiot, I suggest you start making the distinction.
You’ve been labelled not only a theist, but a fundamentalist at that for doing nothing more than deriding someone’s objection to a right wing Christians ideas on censorship? OMG! You have obviously been treated extremely unjustly! Who would ever of thought that about you!
Word of advice, suck it up!
I would love for you to quote me ever sticking up for a totalitarian government. I just happen to make a distinction between totalitarian communists and Marxists.
By the way, those governments you speak of generally call themselves Socialist, another word you Americans don’t seem to understand the meaning of.
Well, it’s nice to know you’re learning something from television.
I’m not interested in your need for vindication when it comes to your feeling about what you call “Marxist” governments. That was never the point. My point is quite simply this, if you’re going to act like an ass, at least have the sense to get your facts right first.
I stand corrected. But I also maintain that the words and deeds of the only people who called themselves Marxists AND ran a country are a lot more important than what Marx wrote. I am aware that you disagree.
That was a joke. If you actually watched those shows on Fox News, you would be aware that O’Reilly and Beck would never say anything like that.
[/q]
If you want, please educate me on two things:
Are you a Marxist, or simply sympathetic to Marxists?
If you are a Marxist (or even a socialist), how do you avoid the problem I stated about collectivist ideologies above? Or do you feel no need to vindicate that concern either?
I’m neither, although I did look into and then study Marxism for a while. I came to the same conclusion that most people do when studying Marx; Considering the wealth of ideas the man had, it’s going to take us centuries to be able to digest them properly. So I suppose you could say I admire the man’s intellect and feel that he has been both deeply wronged as well as had his name unjustly dragged thought the mud. Just like Engles really.
Why would I need to avoid collectivism as a Socialist? Not all Socialist are Marxist you know. In fact the vast majority of Socialist parties in Europe are Christian Socialist and/or Democratic socialist parties. None of these political ideas believe in collectivism. In fact, the name Christian Socialist only implies that they socialism that those parties adhere to is based in the Christian value of charity
Frankly, reading your statements and questions is like listening to the same tired anti-Socialist knee-jerk propaganda we’ve been hearing from over your end for the past 60 years.
[/q]
Very aware of that. In fact, I would like to see someone smart attack the question of whether “the religious right” would even exist as we know it if Lenin’s “majorityites” had not been hardliners about atheism.
Anyway, some (eg. Hayek) have argued that Socialism also leads into collectivism due to its reliance on economic planning. I don’t know if that is true, but I think it is enough of a concern to give it more thought than “why would I worry about that”.
The feeling is extremely mutual!
I feel as if I am hearing the same stuff people used to apologise for Communist excesses for most of the 20th century. It is a very complicated subject. I am still learning and I have a feeling you are as well.
I’m afraid all successful modern economies rely on planning, obviously some more so than others. I’ve debated the same question about planning with both Laissez-Fair capitalists and market economists and the one thing that has come out of the end of every discussion is that unless you regulate your market, at least when dealing with the greediest of individuals and corporations, you invariably end up with oligarchy and monopoly which leads to a shrinking middle class and an ever widening divide between rich and poor. I’m sure I don’t have to draw any pictures on the damage such a divide ends up doing to the country it happens in.
The only real question today is how much you want to regulate your economy. Obviously Socialists believe in such things as universal health care and a social security net for the unemployed but that doesn’t mean we don’t believe in a free and open market. We just don’t believe that climbing over the backs of the poor to get to the top is acceptable behaviour.
Claiming Socialism leads to situations where communist excesses occur is no different than saying all conservatism leads to fascism. Both are completely ridiculous statements and have no value in any real argument about the pros and cons of Socialism.
The Maoists and Bolsheviks of the 20th century are, quite frankly, fundamentalist fanatics. That kind of fundamentalism really is no different from Christian or Conservative fanaticism.
I would have to be a complete fool if I didn’t say that I’m still learning. Anybody with an ounce of sense will continue to look into and study new and/or opposing ideas throughout their lives.
Regarding the necessity of planning, Hayek would agree with your statement I think. I think he would say (and I know I would say) that planning is a necessary evil, meaning that one should engage in it only as a last resort, due to the likelihood of unintended (bad) consequences. Defining “last resort” is a question, but I don’t think that American New Dealers (Roosevelt) would agree with that premise at all; they would see it as a first resort, which is why I can’t support their disciples.
Am I right in thinking that the English equivalent there would be Clement Attlee?
I generally agree that we all have mixed economies at this point. But what I don’t buy is that regulation itself is a solution to social ills. Regulation is a neutral idea; there is no rule saying that “Big Business” can’t run wild under “regulation”. I would argue that this is because “big government” and “big business” are both collectivist ideologies–they can easily learn to get along. Example: Disney getting the US Congress to extend copyright on EVERYTHING so they can keep Mickey safe. In this case, government planning means that nothing has entered the public domain in the US since, I think, the 1970s.
We agree. This is why I get a tragic laugh at somebody accusing his opponent of racism as an arguing tactic: Lenin would have loved it.
I don’t understand what your problem is with government spending in times of economic crisis. I have personally spoken with many economists and one thing they all agree on is that when the populous stops spending (generally due to economic uncertainty), the best thing a government can do is to increase spending. How also are you supposed to keep capital flowing?
We have just been through 3 hard years of economic uncertainty that can be traced strait back to a US administration that did not believe in planning. The entire world is still licking it’s wounds. My question to you is how can such reckless disregard for not just world wide detractors but also home grown potential voters be justified?
Planning is not a necessary evil. planing is just as essential as a free, open market. To have one without the other is to invite social injustice and oppression.
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich
Well leaving aside your ridiculous claim of Marxism == sensorship, I never said anything about imposing our views on China now did I? In fact, my outrage stemmed, quite clearly, from someone else feeling that they had the right to push their beliefs on to me. Kindly point out where, in my original comment, that I mentioned anything about China whatsoever. Just for the record: No, I do not believe we should impose our views on the Chinese. We’re not the bloody world police, as much as we seem to like to think we are, and for any change in government to be truly meaningful and lasting it has to come from within not from without. Quite clearly, the average Chinese citizen doesn’t hate their government to revolt against it, and the relatively small protests have been put down quite effectively. While they may not be completely happy with the society they have, obviously they do not wish too strongly for change. So no, no other country has the right, in my opinion, to impose anything on China nor anyone else. Of course that leads us to the rather invented concept of “rights” but that’s another argument entirely.
What the hell … Do you know what is a religion and what is Marxism?
Okay, as a serious reply.
What is indecent?
Child pornography is illegal. As such, using the internet to distribute/make/acquire such material is against the law, and must be stopped – no matter the cost.
However, if a 19-year old girl decides she wants to shove two cocks up her behind, have it filmed in close-up, and make a few bucks out of it on the internet – well, that’s her choice. I find it disgusting, but we live in a free world, and no law states that it is illegal to shove two cocks up your behind.
So, what is indecent? Who gets to decide that? Does it change depending on what deity the men in power believe in?
Edited 2010-01-14 15:30 UTC
Pretty much, yes. In some countries, you can get arrested for roaming around naked. In other countries, you can get arrested for showing a tit. And in some other countries, you can get arrested for showing your face. What is wrong with being naked you ask me? I don’t f–king know. For some reason, some people believe you need to “protect the children” from naked bodies.
dear god, there is a LOT wrong with a hell of a lot of people being naked. I’d rather it be banned in public than have to see the 300lbs lard balls wiggling around. It is bad enough I have to see them in spandex, sweats, and other clothing generally ill suited to their.. bulk.
‘For some reason, some people believe you need to “protect the children” from naked bodies.’
Actually, the men are being protected from seeing the face of a woman as this could be arousing if I understand correctly.
But in western culture these types of things aren’t uncommon as well, think of the Victorian Era, where they even cover all legs, even those of pianos and tables.
I agree with your points, though there actually are laws against the specific act you mentioned in some places. It is known as sodomy. It doesn’t stop people from doing it, but there are laws against it.
The punishment; being thrown in a small room with people who will continue to commit sodomy.
(Yet another law enacted because some conservative preacher decided they needed a say in what consenting adults do in private.)
I think you’ve got that a little backwards: until recently, sodomy was culturally unacceptable (in most of the West, I think), and criminalization of its practitioners was the (culturally acceptable and encouraged) norm. One random “conservative preacher” didn’t come in and introduce intolerance into a culture or cultures that would otherwise have been fine with sodomy. And, equally, religion isn’t the only way that intolerance for sodomy gets introduced into a culture.
Not that I’m defending anti-sodomy laws, I just don’t think that all hatred and intolerance in society should be blamed on “them religious ass-hats”.
I admit I don’t know the history of the law specifically. The irony in the law and it’s punishment still stands though. I just don’t think my choice to not be penetrated in such a way should be imposed on those who choose to be. It also stands as something that law should have any say in regardless of the fobic nature of society.
I can accept that it wasn’t originally enacted out of bible belt intolerance (or the equivalent within each state that enacted such a law).
Heh, not to be a consistent bother, but the punishment for sodomy wasn’t always imprisonment, either. IIRC, the options they gave Allan Turing, when he was convicted of sodomy in England, where chemical castration, or a sexual relationship with a woman. (Someone with better knowledge of history than mine, feel free to correct me.)
Both options are preferable to the punishment King Edward II of England supposedly received.
Exactly!
Heh, random little chip-in: that’s actually an un-resolved legal question in the States. We actually have federal indecency laws over here, that define indecency in terms of the standards of the community in which the act occurs — so that, perhaps reasonably, what is indecent in Salt Lake City, Utah is not necessarily indecent in Daytona Beach, Florida. Would it surprise you that that law has become much more difficult to interpret and apply in the Internet age, where you can’t easily determine what community’s standards to apply in any given case — since someone in Salt Lake City could easily participate in, or at least view activities taking place in Daytona Beach?
The Courts, so far, have pretty much agreed that that law cannot be construed to allow the standards of the most restrictive community to spread out to the entire nation through the internet… but, if that’s not the case, whose standards do you use?
Edited 2010-01-14 17:08 UTC
I agree, it’s disgusting. One cock is more than enough.
Edited 2010-01-14 18:27 UTC
….I’m at a loss for words. Really. This is mind-boggling stuff you’ve got here, buddy.
Ok, so what you’re saying is that it’s ok to favor “satanism” if you’re rich?
I vote for this as the single most entertaining and absurd post to ever grace OSnews. Who’s with me?
Edited 2010-01-15 10:22 UTC
If freedom of expression doesn’t cover offensive things, then what the hell does it cover?
We certainly don’t need to worry about censorship of agreeable forms of expression.
Edited 2010-01-15 15:36 UTC
You have been modded down so much this i didn’t see your comment in the first place. Haha, the irony.
But freedom of speech should be holy, even if it insults people. If people are insulted than there is usually some form of truth in it. If not, why the hell are you offended by somebody on the internets?
The only problem is false accusations, but that is mostly covered by law already.
Google should refuse that as well:
http://torrentfreak.com/google-removes-pirate-bay-frontpage-from-se…
Edited 2010-01-14 15:27 UTC
A flaw in Adobe software? Well I never.
I know! This astounding revelation clearly changes everything! And I’m sure the people running an eight-year-old OS with pending software patches will be paying very close attention to this security advisory!
My point is that Google got done with the oldest trick in the book. I can bet you they’re having an internal review for the need for Adobe Reader right now.
I, ah, somehow posted that comment in the wrong article. I guess I got my tabs confused. I thought I was posting in the article about the security advisory for Flash. I wish I could delete that post…
I’m wondering what this “GMial” is.
I’m sorry, but all the brave freedom fighters constantly talking about China’s political and moral censorship and positioning it as so-called “totalitarian practices”. For most of us, their words seems kinda correct and full of meaning.
Then how you will describe the USA’s censorship about non-republican/non-democratic movement and so on? Or when it is OK for 19yo girl to stick things in her @-hole and show the scene to over a million of mostly teenage audience through a frikkin webcam? Oh, right! Hey, they have “Parental Controls” in Win/OSX systems and the web browsers which is also can be recognized as sort of parental censorship (but in the local family, not the national web space, obviously).
How else you can call it but not double standards?
Parents?
I’m being serious here. It is the parents’ job to raise their children and figure out at what age which of their kids need what type of parental guidance.
I personally never needed a curfew, a be-home-time, talks about alcohol or cigarettes or whatever because my parents knew they could trust me – and I never broke their trust, so they never had any reason to give me any of those things.
My brothers, however, were a different story, and they did need strong parental hands. That’s your job as a parent: figure out how to raise your kid.
If you need to resort to software tools then you already failed as a parent.
I wish I could vote you up, Thom.
USA censorship and news through popularity isn’t quietly accepted by everyone unless you think that 100% of people believe Fox Infotainment to be a valid news source. It’s really not a one or the other argument as abuses of power go on anywhere there are people in power.
In terms of the poor choices of some hypothetical girl just after turning the age of consent; your ignoring a few things for either convenience or lack of knowledge.
– The original example of a 19 year old suggests a more professional basis. There are laws in place that require she be 19 or older (I believe the law is 18 yrs actually and 19 to drink). As such, there are legal obligations like not providing that video to those under the legal age (18 or 19). By distributing that content to younger viewers, one would be breaking the law. Actually, amateur distribution of such content to those under the legal age would also be illegal.
– Censorship in the home is not like government censorship. One has a right to decide what is not acceptable within there own home though it may be legally acceptable. This is often refered to as responsible parenting. When the children in the home reach 16, they can move out and make there own grown up decisions. Until then, the parent is (or should be) held accountable. Allowing your child under the legal age (18 or 19 again) to view sexually explicit content would be irresponsible parenting.
By contrast, government censorship does not generally decide that at some point, one is an adult and may make there own decisions. It treats the entire population like children who need Uncle to keep them safe from thinking for themselves. It’s also more often about what’s good for the ruling minority rather than what is good for the general population.
Don’t think I’m suggesting that the US is doing it right, they’re as much a political mess as anywhere else. It’s not hard to cherry-pick a few laws meant to support three letter budgets more than benefit the public. I’m simply suggesting that abuses of power are abuses of power regardless of the title given to the form of governance.
Can you honestly agree with everything the Chinese government does and who it prosecutes for what reasons? (I know, I know, if your a The People you can’t honestly answer that question.)
I believe there’s a distinct difference between having someone censor content for you, and providing the tools to allow someone to censor content for themselves.
Just like here on OSNews – I see that the first comment has been “censored” by the rest of the community via down-modding. This is a tool that has been provided to allow others to “flag” content as potentially offensive (in this case, I was indeed offended by the comment suggesting that others should be telling me what is offensive), but there’s nothing preventing you from reading that comment anyway.
Therefore, any system put in place to allow people to censor the content they or their children (since we still give parents the right to make choices on behalf of their children) see, seems reasonable to me.
The real problem begins when *someone else* starts making the decisions for us without our consent or knowledge…
That’s easy. Government censorship is bad. Private censorship within the realm of your property rights is OK. What you cite as examples does not constitute government censorship.
BTW, when I saw the words “freedom fighters,” “double standards,” and the somewhat veiled support of China totalitarian practices (note no quotes here) together, I could easily tell what country you are from. Interesting, isn’t it.
Mind you, Google will decide what they want but their image has already been sullied by the way that they handed over information related to so-called dissidents.
Foreign companies should have been on edge after the Tianemann Square incident but they proceeded to put their money and business into China, despite the government.
China has likely had roughly 5000 years of bad governments, each overrunning its predecessor by force. The current one seems to have figured out how to please people while hurting them.
The bit about using Taiwan’s computers as bots should be easy enough to counter. Someone simply needs to get free anti-virus software on each and every computer that requires it and make sure that the definitions are updated regularly.
I am reading through the responses to my comment, and I am not really finding a resonance to the point of the post. Even among computer litterate, who values their intelligence, this is rare wisdom, it may seem.
And that is that disruptive, offensive elements on the internet, usually ruin the experience for everyone else, turning the internet into a satanic place, where spirit is set above sense. And this is ofcourse provocative, and results in behaviour, that is also the same as what religion calls “following ones desire.”
And that can be solved by moderation according to conservative values. Censorship of provocative behaviour = good. Just like we put criminals in prison, we should censor unwanted citizens on the internet aswell.
What is cultivated in the madness, of provocative posts, and idiocy, is no other than satan. And if this noise grows large enough, abusers may easily hide in it, in a society that has gone blind, to satan.
In fact, that these people that are supposed to posess the sense, and claim correct use of information technology, computer users supposedly above the average intelligence of netcitizens, react like this, is nothing but a sign, of how brainwashed our current society is.
That indeed is another story, and is probably related to schoolabuse, and how intelilgent suffer due to those who set spirits above sense, and instead is overtaken by this mindset themselves.
Peace Be With You.
“human rights activists”, don’t they mean terrorists?
It’s disturbing. One looks at the computer industry, and see deviant people quite a few places. For instance, Steve ballmer, at the top of the worlds largest computer company.
Purely theoretically, I could lead a similar company, and produce a better result myself.
However nobody listens to my people it seems. They only like people, if they reflect some of their own deviance. And in that, attacks their own human resources, because like the beast, they do not understand higher intelligence.
It is indeed, “the life of the world”, as religion states it, and the background for gnostic thoughts about rejecting it, and instead living according to religious dicipline.