Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Censorship Government The Internet Your Rights Online

The Shortest Internet Censorship Debate Ever 169

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This discussion has been archived.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 Azure Flash ( 2440904 ) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @10:01AM (#44399047)
    ... "We'll just make the content we don't like illegal"?
  • by Yomers ( 863527 ) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @10:08AM (#44399097) Journal

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


    Why exactly should we want any censorship?

  • 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...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 27, 2013 @10:23AM (#44399181)

    I want child-porn blocked. For everyone.

    I'd rather have the maker of the picture/video prosecuted. The damage is already done and I'm not buying into any "market dynamics" that claim the demand for CP is the cause for the production of it.

    I want sites blocked telling people actively to be violent.

    Your demands actually tell a lot about you. You don't trust other people to think for themselves and you rather cover up crimes than prosecute. And when the censorship exists, the likes of you will certainly block more to cover up their own fuckups. ANYONE demanding censorship has in the back of his head the demand to cover up faults of his own.

    Go fuck yourself, Mr. Wannabe Dictator.

  • by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @10:25AM (#44399191)

    I'm afraid that all ideas do _not_ deserve equal review or attention, when the issues are so clear. Such censorship is expensive, ineffective for its most vaunted goals, and immediately prone to _enormous_ abuse to track or censor political and social speech. Wasting time in the middle debating subtleties lends legitimacy to very dangerous practices, such as deep packet inspection used to monitor speech and writing wholesale and aggregating the data into very dangerous histories on individuals and groups.

  • by cheekyjohnson ( 1873388 ) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @10:29AM (#44399223)

    implying that 'it's so absurd we shouldn't be discussing it'.

    Sounds good to me.

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


  • 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 on Saturday July 27, 2013 @11:17AM (#44399575)

    OK, so you're just the usual well-meaning, emotionally-involved, naive idiot who doesn't see the consequences of global censorship. Just as bad.

  • by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @11:26AM (#44399647)

    Right now the internet is often a unregulated wild west

    Just like the air. Imagine that: When two people meet and talk stuff, the air faithfully conveys acoustic signals between them! Completely regardless of the contents! If one of them says "let's kill my neighbor", the air does nothing! Surely this situation can't be tolerated anymore?

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

    by K. S. Kyosuke ( 729550 ) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @11:33AM (#44399709)

    What has the IT industry mainly been doing to address this real problem?

    Problem? What problem? The problem of a communication network working as desiged?

    All the major search engines are guilty with this regard.

    Guilty of what? Are you saying that the major search engines are hiding these results from the police? And if not, the police can simply lift their fat lazy asses and act on the things that everybody else sees.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 27, 2013 @12:04PM (#44399973)

    Okay, I'll play ball. Different AC.

    This should be an indicator that you are proposing something that steps on the rights of others, yes. Regretfully their reaction tends to be the standard rules of engagement these days; don't stand up for the rights of others except when they are rights you appreciate, and then overreact in ways that don't inspire common dialogue. End result: steady decline of rights for everyone, because most of us are happy to allow rights we don't personally exercise to be tread upon if it's accompanied by the right special interest poison pill.

    I have two adorable nieces. Their father was part of a security detail in rehabilitating a pedophile. But I'm also a technology guy. No amount of love for those girls changes the fact that holistically censoring child porn is a pipe dream. If you need an example of the type of infrastructure and policies needed to support this model, please take a good look at what China is doing, and the other social problems that accompany that kind of infrastructure. (this is not a smoke screen for the bad crap we do that China doesn't)

    At the end of the day, it's a variant of AB fallacy. "x is bad. (law/policy) y helps stops x. Therefore y is good." Doesn't factor in what we're sacrificing for y and whether that is good, and is often accompanied by two collieries: "people who disagree with y are bad" or "people who disagree with y support x".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 27, 2013 @03:44PM (#44401487)

    But the original point was that I was hoping that blocking the child pornography would affect the demand. Or maybe even nullify the supply.

    That's exactly the problem with your 'solution'. It's based on hope, not rational argument or observation. There is no reason to think that blocking CP will affect the demand. On the other hand, there is every reason to think that blocking CP (or anything) will push the material to an obscure corner of the net without any social or judicial oversight. Pedophiles don't rely on google image search to find their fix.

"Well, it don't make the sun shine, but at least it don't deepen the shit." -- Straiter Empy, in _Riddley_Walker_ by Russell Hoban