Internet Censorship

[Zephyr]

Should governments censor material on the world wide web?

-------------------------------------------

[ShatteredWings]

No... it's the internet, user be ware.

[NightHawksr71]

Talking about Australia's proposed filter by any chance?

No, Its the individuals right, of free will that says the government should not censor it. However certain illegal things I would agree with, Such as child pornography(I believe that they should take this out at the source i.e the makers of child pornography, instead of just punishing the majority for what the minority view), things such as censoring euthanasia would be bad, as it is an opinion.

All in all, it would cost less, to take certain things out at the source that they want to censor with this filter. It just screams lazy to me. While showing that they want to be able to control us mere working class, as well as they control sheep.

Which annoys me to say the slightest.

[ShatteredWings]

removing illegal material is not censorship....


censoship would be like what China does with not allowing certain sites

[Trickster]

The warning sign is there for a reason. On all adult sites it warns that it contains explicit conent, and should not be viewed by people 18 years old in age or not mentaly capable of processing it. It ur own fault if u dont read what people have gone to the work through to protect a young innocent mind from the adult world prematuraly.
Illegal stuff as child porn, drug selling sites should be taken down but it will be hard as no drug dealer is stupid enough to have people Google "Selling Meth" and find their website. It would most likely have a cover up or be a regular site with a backroom. That will be difficult but it can be done.

[Requin]

It depends on how the government would define 'censorship' as if it got really out of hand, I would be annoyed. Along with many others. I'm guessing they mean porn etc???

Again, I honestly can't see the point in wasting millions on blockage software for the countries internet. As someone's bound to figure a way through it.
A waste of money, government's have got lot's more important things to deal with right now I believe? Like ummm the fact that there's a recession and no one's got any money and banks failing?
And everyone in the east wants to blow each other up?

[phish]

That is the day america dies we love are porn!

[Mzor203]

If you're old enough to go out and buy a router, pay a monthly fee for the internet, etc., you can make your own decisions and judge what you're doing. If you have kids, well then it's your fault if you don't do what you can to stop them from accessing harmful material.

Illegal material though, yes, this seriously needs to have more focus on it. As NightHawkSr71 said, things like this need to be dealt with by punishing the people who are putting it up, and I believe more measures should be put in place to prevent it. That is a different discussion entirely, however.

In the end, my answer is no, the internet should not be censored.

[Camazotz]

No, I want the freedom to look up whatever I want, regardless of the content.

[Sapphire]

Shutting down illegal sites or sites containing illegal material is fine.
Censorship is very different though. It is not concerned with preventing people from viewing innocent information or sites.

Censorship is never right, but preventing people from viewing illegal/dangerous material cannot be criticised.

[NightHawksr71]

Shutting down illegal sites or sites containing illegal material is fine.
Censorship is very different though. It is not concerned with preventing people from viewing innocent information or sites.

Censorship is never right, but preventing people from viewing illegal/dangerous material cannot be criticised.

That may be true. But the government was talking about blocking sites on euthanasia, Which yes, is a illegal but its also a very widely held debate on whether we should allow it. To me, it really depends on the illegal content. Euthanasia shouldn't be banned as its our right as humans to vote for our say in the matter, such as choice to live or die. they were also planning on banning a few other subjects with a similar background to euthanasia.

Some things the government were planning to bad with this filter, was ridiculous. I disagree with most censorship to begin with anyway. As it violates our right of freedom to view what we choose. Yes certain things shouldn't be viewed, but wouldn't it be smarter to STOP these things from being put on the internet in the first place? By censoring something, your just making the problem go underground, which hides it from public view.

[MysticalBurrito]

People have the choice to look up what they do.
doing that would just cause people to go black market for porn and other stuff

[JacobHerrington]

all form of cerncorship are wrong.
no one has the right to cencor anything

[Sapphire]

That may be true. But the government was talking about blocking sites on euthanasia, Which yes, is a illegal but its also a very widely held debate on whether we should allow it. To me, it really depends on the illegal content. Euthanasia shouldn't be banned as its our right as humans to vote for our say in the matter, such as choice to live or die. they were also planning on banning a few other subjects with a similar background to euthanasia.

Some things the government were planning to bad with this filter, was ridiculous. I disagree with most censorship to begin with anyway. As it violates our right of freedom to view what we choose. Yes certain things shouldn't be viewed, but wouldn't it be smarter to STOP these things from being put on the internet in the first place? By censoring something, your just making the problem go underground, which hides it from public view.
I wasn't saying that they were right to block sites on euthanasia. I can see why they might be inclined to do it. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.

Things like racism, terrorism, radical groups, child pornography are obviously dangerous/illegal.
Should sites on these really be allowed for us to look at? No.
Can they always shut down the site at the source? No.
Blocking these from being accessible is, IMO, the lesser of two evils.

I do not condone censorship; I support protecting people from things like those mentioned above.

[phish]

Whats euthanasia.

[Mzor203]

Whats euthanasia.

Assisted suicide. It means someone helps you end your life if you want to.

[Halibut]

naw . we have the right to know the truth

[ManyPearTree]

No censoring!
If the government starts censoring material, wikipedia will look like an FBI document

[Eagle1]

NO!!

[Atonement]

Shutting down illegal sites or sites containing illegal material is fine.
Censorship is very different though. It is not concerned with preventing people from viewing innocent information or sites.

Censorship is never right, but preventing people from viewing illegal/dangerous material cannot be criticised.


Right on. I totally support shutting down sites that promote, instruct, or enable illegal activity, but as for censorship as tell us what we can and can't see because of what the government thinks is right, is wrong. Lol. that sentence was fun.

[Stark]

No. If you want to search for it, then search for it.