Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
Censorship Government The Internet Your Rights Online

The Shortest Internet Censorship Debate Ever 169

Posted by timothy
from the on-second-thought dept.
rysiek writes "When a politician starts talking about defending the innocence of children, there's bound to be a great policy initiative ahead. That's how British PM David Cameron introduced the British porn block. That's also how the Polish Minister of Justice started his remarks yesterday morning on how good an idea it is and that it should be introduced in Poland. This started the shortest Internet censorship debate ever, as in the evening of the same day the Polish Prime Minister and the Minister of Administration and Digitization denounced any such ideas: 'We shall not block access to legal content regardless of whether or not it appeases us aesthetically or ethically.' There had been several full-blown Internet censorship debates in Poland during the last four years. Apparently the arguments against it were not lost on at least some of Polish politicians."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Shortest Internet Censorship Debate Ever

Comments Filter:
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday July 27, 2013 @11:04AM (#44399455) Homepage Journal

    The thing is, we are all in favor of some sort of censorship aren't we?

    No.

    I want child-porn blocked. For everyone.

    And you don't care what else gets blocked along with it. And you're also a hypocrite, because you said "This discussion should be had extensively and without prejudice. Without sentiments like 'will someone pleeease think of the children'.

    I want sites blocked telling people actively to be violent. The whole thing is, what are exactly the limits there, how do we establish those boundaries? And enforce them?

    Well, you could ban such sites, and then you'd drive your Neo-Nazis underground like Germany has. Then you can pretend you've stamped them out, like they do. Or, you know, you could let people say crazy shit on the internet so that it's easy to find the crazy people.

    Outright dismissing any sort of censorship is naive.

    Apologizing for any sort of censorship is naive.

  • Re:Reailty check (Score:4, Informative)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @11:09AM (#44399505)

    How on earth is it an ISPs responsibility or even prerogative to decide what content to deliver and which one not to?

    How the fuck do you dare to push the responsibility for your children on someone else? Did the nanny state reach that level already that people feel entitled to someone else taking care of their responsibilities?

  • by jimicus (737525) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @11:46AM (#44399821)

    I'm an active web developer and proponent of liberties for all.

    Then why don't you use an ISP that offers filtering and ask them to turn it on for you?

    That way everyone gets their liberties and you get your filtered Internet. Why should an entire nation be bound to your desires simply because you can't be bothered to switch ISP?

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Working...