Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Hurrah! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 27, 2013 @09:32AM (#44398871)

    Hurrah for Po(rn)land!

    • by Kwpolska (2026252)
      Our laws also make lolicon illegal, at least according to certain people on the Internets.
  • by ThaumaTechnician (2701261) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @09:40AM (#44398901)
    Lest someone not chase the links down, there's a useful 'HOWTO: EFFECTIVELY ARGUE AGAINST INTERNET CENSORSHIP IDEAS linked-to in the TFL at http://rys.io/en/94 [rys.io] "You forgot Poland" just might take on a new meaning.
    • by Anonymous Coward

      These debates happen often enough you'd think someone would formally study which arguments are most effective— I don't mean a pile of informal advice, but actual measurements of argument success.

      • by rysiek (1328591)
        I don't think this is really doable, because each and every time there is a fsckton of political stuff going on behind the scenes and political reasons to do or not do stuff. It is impossible to measure the real (vs. perceived due to political reasons that we do not know of) impact of any single argument. At least, that's my experience with this.
    • by Teun (17872)
      This is a prime example of a site that under the proposed UK law needs blocking!

      If only for the odd sideways-scrolling :)

      • by rysiek (1328591)
        Yeah, I get that a lot. You can make the browser window less wide and get the mobile layout (more readable,a ccording to some), or just use the .txt link: http://rys.io/en/109.txt [rys.io] http://rys.io/en/94.txt [rys.io]
        • by Teun (17872)
          Heh, thanks for the tip, after de-maximising the browser it becomes a 'regular' page.
        • by rvw (755107)

          Yeah, I get that a lot. You can make the browser window less wide and get the mobile layout (more readable,a ccording to some), or just use the .txt link: http://rys.io/en/109.txt [rys.io] http://rys.io/en/94.txt [rys.io]

          Add a "print" link, one column layout, white background with black text. It looks great, the effects and all are really nice, but reading such a long article without knowing about this trick will not promote the message, and that's what it's all about!

    • > HOWTO debate censorship.

      tl;dr Direct elected politicians to here [slashdot.org].

    • by JakeBurn (2731457)

      I only wish I had mod points today. For both points really:)

  • And so do I. I used to listen to polish punk that had all the words bleeped out. Sometimes it has to get worse before it gets better...
    • by Rockoon (1252108)

      I used to listen to polish punk that had all the words bleeped out.

      I'm curious, was that because there were national or regional laws imposing it, was it because there was a market for it, or was it because a large retailer demanded it?

      In the United States, albums with explicit content are often available in both censored and uncensored forms. The reason for this is a little but of all three reasons. There arent laws against selling explicit music, but there are laws against broadcasting explicit music in some cases. Additionally, some parents will buy their children ce

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Hognoxious (631665)

        It's just because they can't remember the lyrics.

        Similarly, Polish plumbers forget to tighten fittings and Polish builders forget what a a right angle is.

        • and Polish builders forget what a a right angle is.

          They must be leftists.

        • Polish plumbers forget to tighten fittings

          Sometimes, perhaps yes. Still better than English plumbers who won't turn up for 3 weeks, will then arrive late, curse about not having the right tools (seriously how does that even work for a professional plumber), go out for a fag and then bugger off never to be seen again. No problem with forgetting to tighten fittings becaus they never get that far.

      • So you are basically telling that the USA has laws that prohibit the broadcast of music or other media that are legal to buy, sell or play otherwise? How curiously unconstitutional, if you put it that way.
  • Common sense is not fully eradicated there yet. Plus they really remember what censorship really is http://www.examiner.com/article/polish-parliament-members-wear-anonymous-guy-fawkes-masks-opposition-to-acta [examiner.com]
  • MY children would not take money to deinstall the censorship. they would ask for a cashier's check.
  • by Azure Flash (2440904) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @10:01AM (#44399047)
    ... "We'll just make the content we don't like illegal"?
  • by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @10:11AM (#44399121)

    Only cowards use censorship

    • by rysiek (1328591)
      No, that's the shortest argument against it. And while I appreciate the sentiment, it is quite important to keep the debate around this topic on a level that allows for technical, philosophical and economy-based arguments to be made, otherwise we land up in a mud slinging contest ("you're a coward!", "oh yeah? well you're a terrorist-paedophile!") that anti-censorship folk would probably lose.
  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @10:18AM (#44399147)

    I've invented the best, most effective and cost effective internet content filter ever devised. Concerned as any parent is about what my son could be doing on the internet I set about thinking of a system where I could prevent him from getting interested in Midget porn or gaining the skills to build a meth lab in my basement. After many weeks of planning and development I finally implemented my system and it has worked flawlessly ever since. How does my flawless system work? I placed the computer in the living room and then faced the monitor towards the open room. Amazingly, he seems reluctant to go to sites that I'd disapprove of now. It's great what actual parenting can do...

    • I'd +1 except for the last few days attempts at 'spending' mod points haven't had any effect for me -- anyone else experiencing this problem?

    • by houghi (78078)

      Reluctant is the right word. This is what your kid might be doing:
      1) Turn off the showing of images in the browser.
      2) Google for e.g. adult stories [google.co.uk]
      3) start reading e.g. this (NSFW !!!!) [literotica.com] and with the search, you find much more.

      Hey, perhaps you run Linux, so he can use lynx or any other text based browser, so you, on the couch, won't be able to read it. ;-)

      I used to get around the age restrictions at the movies by buying the book. When I later saw the move, I can tell you that the book was WAY worse (or perha

      • 2) Google for e.g. adult stories [google.co.uk]
        3) start reading e.g. this (NSFW !!!!) [literotica.com] and with the search, you find much more.

        Reading is good for a kid! Pity that these things tend to be not exactly Shakespeare.

    • by Ardyvee (2447206)

      Yeah that certainly works. Unless you decide to leave him alone at home, then he won't be that reluctant, will he? I say this as somebody who has the computer in an open room. Just as a little experiment, install some sort of monitoring software, leave him alone and see what he visits. And then proceed to do nothing about it because you shouldn't be having such software there in the first place, except now you know whether or not what you have been trying works or not.

      For what it is worth, I think this is o

    • I've invented the best, most effective and cost effective internet content filter ever devised.

      We had an even better one when I was a kid. Most of didn't have internat access at all. Still didn't stop some chap selling CDs full of internet porn at school.

      Seriously though, your kid is choking it to porn, probably internet porn. He's using his computer and porn acquired elsewhere. If he doesn't have one then he's snatching moments to tug it when you're not in the way and that shared family keyboard is now sup

    • If you REALLY want to filter YOUR computers internet connection there is a very simple and totally effective approach.

      A white list.

      Blocking content you don't like on the internet is a never ending task but you CAN produce a SHORT list of approved sites for you or those who can't yet escape your clutches to visit. Because I have found that those kids who grew up in censored households were the ones to go most off the rails when they finally moved out. No greater slut then the preachers daughter.

      I am remin

  • If such filters were very accurate, it would be great.
    Only if it was opt-in of course.

    Filter all articles and sites related to [Microsoft|Linux|Apple]
    Filter content of [repidlicans|democrats], [gristians|atheists|muslims|Buddhists|other].

    Internet would entirely consist of unicorns and kittens!

  • by ADRA (37398) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @10:33AM (#44399257)

    I want to make a commercial about censorship and it sould go like this: There is a debate between two people arguing about censorship. The first is arguing for censorship about saving children blah blah. When its time for the detractor, he says one word and gets his mic cable audibly removed. You see him talking, but no words. Thin in a large caption "It will Happen" across the screen before a fade out. Done.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Might want to flip that around, so the proponent of censorship is the one getting the mic ripped away from them. It's more likely to get the pro-censorship people riled up about being censored and perhaps they'll get the irony of that.

      • by rysiek (1328591)
        Especially that the censorship opponent will be immediately labelled "terrorist-paedophile", so it's a "good thing" they can't voice their "evil" opinion, right?
    • by mpe (36238)
      I want to make a commercial about censorship and it sould go like this: There is a debate between two people arguing about censorship. The first is arguing for censorship about saving children blah blah. When its time for the detractor, he says one word and gets his mic cable audibly removed. You see him talking, but no words.

      Or how about whilst the first is midway through the second pulls out some wire cutters and snips the first's cable.
      Then maybe saying something like "Alas per $first, he never read Ha
    • Almost there....

      The caption will read "when asked, The Government implied this person may be a terrorist, or perhaps a paedophile, then again they might just be feeling depressed and suicidal."
  • We need to Polish our laws.

  • Besides not being 100% reliable I don't think the government should be filtering any media (books, Internet, radio, TV). I don't want an elected body to force their morals on me and my family. Every household should be able to enforce their own standards. I would have no problem if the government forced the ISPs to provide a filter that people could opt in to which allowed them to customize exactly the content that was prevented from being shown. It would have to be completely open and transparent. So

  • by PPH (736903) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @12:48PM (#44400271)

    The world is a dangerous place. You must protect your own children from those dangers while preparing them to deal with them as they attain independence. Don't expect us to do your parenting for you.

  • Child porn is a problem, so lets block all porn.
    Meth is a problem, so lets put Pseudoephedrine behind the counter.
    Irresponsible people with pit bulls are a problem, so lets ban all "dangerous" breeds.
    Evil people killing others with guns is a problem, so lets ban all guns.
    Over-consumption of energy drinks is a problem, so lets ban energy drinks.

    none of the above "solutions" actually solves the problem, it just infringes on the rights of the people.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (8) I'm on the committee and I *still* don't know what the hell #pragma is for.

Working...