Censorship
 

What do you think about censorship? Do you think other people should have the right to tell you what you can and can not watch, hear or express? Yes? No? And why?

I'm bringing this up because of a local issue here in good old Holland. A little while ago I read a news report about a certain telephone and internet provider refusing to block a list of webpages marked by the police as 'sites displaying child pornography without doubt'. The official response from the provider was that 'it's not their bussiness to fight child pornography and aside from that they don't believe in this kind of censorship'.
At first I didn't really get it. Why would a provider, why would anyone not grab a chance to block sites like this? However as I thought about it the provider might have had a point. For one by blocking them other sites will no doubt spawn and the police won't have any track over those sites. But more importantly, if you start to censor things like this then one could ask what's next? If it's up to the authorities to decide what should be censored and what shouldn't then next could be political websites expressing a certain opinion, religious websites devoted to a religion not supported by these individuals, websites that are seen as terrorism or somehow have something to do with this.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't advocate child pornography in any way but out of basic principle I think the internet provider made the right call in not blindly obeying the police and censoring everything. Not because they deem child pornography acceptable, but to prevent censorship from becoming a normal thing that can be applied to just about anything officials want.

Ohhhhhhh a big topic with words I don't understand but anyway I see there point hmmmm I think we have a right to see what we want to see not that I agree with child porn mind you.

I so need to fight the urge to say something very unpleasant...

I never heard this story before? Maybe it's because I don't listen to News Bulletins XD.

Well I think *** ** ***** *** ** * *** ***** ******** * * fucking camels *** *** *** *** ******* ** *** ****** ** ** * ********! And that's how Peter got covered in shit.

*CENSORED*

I can see the argument's for and against this, but at the end of the day it's harmful in the sense it creates a "fanbase", as it were.

With other sites, that give opinions, nobody is being hurt, no matter how much they may plead about their feelings. But with child-porn etc people are being hurt.

I abhor Censorship, though, on all levels. But this idea isn't really Censorship, it's merely sensible thinking.

My joke was way funnier.

I have to disagree. If the police has a list of known sites then they should contact the hosts and have the sites shut down instead of merely blocking them.

I think a greater solution is to march pedophiles into concentration camps. They deserve it, they aren't Jews or gays or sapient or animals.

As for censorship, my feelings on it are the same as gun control;
You can take my gun or violent/sexy/political games when you pry them from my cold, dead hands, to paraphrase Charlton Heston. Anyone telling me what I can and can't watch will swiftly be given the finger.

Strange - I hear the church has strict rules about what you can and can't watch...

I'm very against censorship, and believe that every individual should possess the right to say, see, and hear whatever they wish.

I didn't know the Church watched its priests and followers private lives outside of bedrooms and cars.

I have no idea what that sentence actually means but I was rather referring to the Church's opinions on its followers viewing of porn or other related media.

Porn technically falls under the bedroom category.

really? Thats interesting...Well....I think people should be able to read, write, think, talk about whatever they want, as long as its not something nasty like kiddie porn

Child pornography is just sick. But if I want to see/hear/talk about/read about/take part in it, I should be able to. Not saying that I do though, of course. Maybe that was a bad example. If the bigwigs start trying to control what we can see/hear/do, who knows how far that'll go in the future? It could very well end up like a worldwide Big Brother.
That show is retarded, by the way.

Child porn is a horrific thing. I believe that should be censored. I don't think much else if anything else should though. Political correctness is overrated.

As has been said, censoring is pointless, more sites would merely crop up, it would be far better to go to the web owners and order it's closure instead, rather than censoring. The site would still be there, and people could find a way through it anyway to look at the site if they wanted to.

Surely the internet is free and open to everyone? What right do the police have to censor things? (though maybe there ought to be a limit somewhere) The internet is open to all people, there are pretty much no bars holding it down, so how can anyone have the right to say what should and shouldn't be allowed? If you don't want to look at something in particular, don't. It's the consumer's choice, no one else's. The internet provider made the right call here.

"I have to disagree. If the police has a list of known sites then they should contact the hosts and have the sites shut down instead of merely blocking them"

Yeh, i'd agree with that. That was the point i was trying to make, blocking...shutting them down...pot-tay-toe, pot-tah-toe.

"I think a greater solution is to march pedophiles into concentration camps. They deserve it, they aren't Jews or gays or sapient or animals"

Yeh, shall we not. That solution is as moronic as the view of 'bringing the death sentence back'. By simply killing them we treat the symptom, not the cause.

If, however, we subjected them, as well as serial offenders of any crime, to human experimentation whilst they're alive, we then have a greater chance at discovering the cause and then finding a cure.

"Anyone telling me what I can and can't watch will swiftly be given the finger"

I'd agree usually, but in this case people are being harmed. Well, children are being harmed, and by allowing people to watch you create a 'fanbase', which means more children get harmed to supply the base with it's kicks.

It seems that most on this site seem to be thinking in the usual Black and White way of liberal Hippies. The World isn't Black and White, by banning one thing you don't ban everything, and vice versa.

I look at it this way - the ends justify the means.

If, by limiting a persons freedom to view something, you spare a few thousand kids in the process, that's fine. 'But will it spare them?', possibly. Some kids may only get abused because they get so many people wanting to see more of that material.

Such sites tend to be high money earners, anyway, so take away the sites and you take away the money, meaning you take away the desire to risk their lives for the cash.

There is, though, the argument that if you let people view such things, that satiates their feelings and they feel less inclined to actively go out and do the stuff they're watching.

Meh.

The topic of pedophilia and all it's happy stories is one which can largely be debated about but it will always boil down to the fact that child molesters and pedophiles (please note that there is a difference between the two) are people with a disfunction of sorts. 99% of the time they can't help it that they are the way they are. It's not like the choose to be attracted to children. Giving in to the urges is a whole other deal though and a different discussion entirely. Having said that, I have to disagree with people who class pedophilia as a sexual orientation. While this may sound hypocritical coming from me, I don't think it lays within nature to be attracted to (your own) young. Why not? Because it goes against every single instinct we have to protect young ones. I personaly class it as an illness rather then a sexual orientation.

As for this particular censorship issue. I agree with Jacob that allowing these sites to function openly might create a 'fanbase', however I do not think that merely blocking someone from viewing them is an effective way of fighting it. Stuff like this should be dealt with at the roots. Authorities from different countries should work together in busting people who exploit this stuff and this is what they have been actively doing for a couple of years now. Every now and then I see news reports of co-operations between countries where a few people are arrested and tons of material confiscated.
But it also goes to the standardization of censorship as a whole. While it is unfortunate that child pornography was the example here, they made the right call just to make the statement that censorship shouldn't be as easy as 'this is bad, this is censored'.
To expand the example, lets assume that the topic here was not child pornography but a racist website. The police has a list of extreme right racist websites and calls the ISP to block all of them. Would you agree to this? I personaly dispise racism, the reasoning behind it is idiotic and people who believe this shit are generaly no smarter then a peanut. However, I do not believe sites like that should be censored because it falls under freedom of speach. Once you start taking down sites or other things that might offend someone of some group of people then there will be no ending to it.

No more Censorship!It's unfair!We have the Right to see, hear, say etc. what we want!No more Censorship!

"To expand the example, lets assume that the topic here was not child pornography but a racist website. The police has a list of extreme right racist websites and calls the ISP to block all of them. Would you agree to this? I personaly dispise racism, the reasoning behind it is idiotic and people who believe this shit are generaly no smarter then a peanut. However, I do not believe sites like that should be censored because it falls under freedom of speach. Once you start taking down sites or other things that might offend someone of some group of people then there will be no ending to it"

The two cannot be compared.

If the Racist websites were showing actual people being harmed and beaten and the like, and it was encouraging others to do the same, then yes, i would agree they are the same and they need to be dealt with.

Likewise, if you have sites (like NAMBLA, i do believe) that SAY that child molestation etc is healthy, then, i believe that falls under freedom of speech.

But comparing a website that preaches Racism to a website that exploits children sexually is invalid.

That wasn't really the point. I'm talking about censorship in general.