NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm doing a debate on Wednesday called

''This house thinks the Internet should be censored''

i have to argue AGAINST it and i would really appreciate some good arguments for why the internet SHOULDN'T be censored.


NB: DO NOT POST REASONS WHY THE INTERNET SHOULD BE CENSORED BECAUSE THEY'RE NO GOOD TO ME!

thank-you xxxxXxxxx

Because it establishes a dangerous precedent of censoring a media outlet because some people find information contained therein to be unsavory. If the internet becomes censored because some people don't like what's out there, then there's nothing preventing people from censoring other forms of media, such as television or newspapers, when certain people are offended. And what are the reasons for the censoring of the internet? Because of questionable material? Whose definition of questionable do we use? Different things are offensive to different people. If a precedent is established that allows the internet to be censored because certain groups find certain material objectionable, what is to keep forms of political expression censored because some people find it objectionable. The censoring of any form of media just creates a slippery slope of censorship.

el double posto

Because only sexually repressed fascists and proto-fascists are afraid of sexual and anti-government and anti-capitalist material on the internet.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

...

Because only sexually repressed fascists and proto-fascists are afraid of sexual and anti-government and anti-capitalist material on the internet.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg


hey now, some of us sexually repressed fascists are just fine with antizog and anti international banking conspiracy materials, and have a decided fondness for internet porn especially biker bears spanking naughty twinks.

Because only sexually repressed fascists and proto-fascists are afraid of sexual and anti-government and anti-capitalist material on the internet.



hey now, some of us sexually repressed fascists are just fine with antizog and anti international banking conspiracy materials, and have a decided fondness for internet porn especially biker bears spanking naughty twinks.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

*high fives Ernst Rohm*

Why the internet shouldn't be censored, you ask?

Because we are violating the 1st amendment in doing so.
-enough said

Why the internet shouldn't be censored, you ask?

Because we are violating the 1st amendment in doing so.
-enough said

But you can't say that, there's censorship in all sorts of forms in the US. Freedom of speech applies until you start to impinge on someone else's freedoms. And then comes the supreme court.

I think you need to be specific about who it's uncensored for. If you say for everyone, people are going to bring up the "children" who could be harmed by all sorts of content. Adults... maybe let them fend for themselves.

All censorship is bad. If you want to censor something so bad, at least try something that is harmful, like a book promoting sexism. The internet is a place of free thought.

-----------------------------------------
"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality."
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!

http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/terrapvlchra/images/steatopygia.jpg

Whether the Internet should be censored may be a moot point if you look at how wireless technology is advancing. (I am making an argument for the Internet to NOT be censored, but it is a little different.) Wireless broadband may advance to the point that people will own enough cheap broadcasting equipment that wireless intranets, free from subscription fees and government regulation, will exist, first in large cities, than in other places. After all, if you own your own equipment that gives you your own bandwidth, and...well, look...I hear people with cable modems have high-power routers now, right? What if more and more people with laptops, home wireless networks, business wireless networks, and sufficient security can let Internet packets flow from one end of the city to the other without you actually needing an ISP? There would be IP problems with this at first, but an open-standards/open source method could be applied to fix it. Then you could have your own Web site on your own computer, with all the CGI/PHP/MySQL trimmings, at no cost other than electricity.

It is hard to talk about because it involves talking about the specificities of hardware and software. But technically, say, in an apartment building at the moment, or a dorm building filled with computer geeks, enough wireless tech and room-to-room networks could be put together to set up an intranet independent of the Internet. Then if a wireless broadcaster was set to beam packets from that dorm building to the next, and from that dorm building to the next, you build a larger and larger and larger intranet, and at some point, it becomes like its own little Internet ... which is how the Internet began in the first place.

That's my visionary's dream for the future of the Internet. ~ Michael.

Censorship is very often done under false pretenses. "To protect the children?" (read: to keep in power and advance careers of hypocrite, so-called moral pundits who are actually the biggest amoral power hungry bastards that benefit from limiting information)

Limiting information is limiting freedom of thought and speech. Censorship goes hand in hand with broken down democracy. N-Korea, China, etc.

Shorter version of what Love Poetry said--and I agree with him :shock: --is that censoring the internet is a fool's errand. It's not practical in the long run. Technology is outstripping the ability of censors to clamp down on information which is part of the reason that digital technology scares the hell out of content providers. They don't control the flow of information any more.

So if I were debating the premise, I would argue that it doesn't matter whether or not the internet should be censored because the fact is that it can't be censored, not effectively anyway.

Shorter version of what Love Poetry said--and I agree with him :shock: --is that censoring the internet is a fool's errand.Despite our differences of opinion on religion and war, I really do believe in political and economic freedom.It's not practical in the long run. Technology is outstripping the ability of censors to clamp down on information which is part of the reason that digital technology scares the hell out of content providers. They don't control the flow of information any more.In actuality, though, we are in the long-run. The government and overly bureaucratic industries are catching up so they can censor us. But you might only notice it if you are a content provider of any note. ISPs are clamping down on people who use too much bandwidth. The worst spammers are being prosecuted, and in ever-so-slightly higher numbers. Music thieves of every stripe are being subpoenaed. Server-side, ISP-controlled spam filters are getting "better" at filtering out spam, which means the jokes you are forwarding may not be getting to all of your friends. It also means the new poems I send out are not getting to all of my friends.

The methodology I envision bypasses all this nonsense, although it would still be illegal to download copyrighted music. In the future I see, wireless technology will become so prevalent, communities can set up their own intranets with their own Web sites, email systems, and instant messaging. You won't need to lease bandwidth from ISPs because the wireless equipment you buy is yours. Whatever bandwidth it gives you is what you have. And considering that you could possibly get almost infinite bandwidth in a small wireless network, it won't matter too much if someone else is using some of your bandwidth gratis. That will be the basis of the free Internet of the future. Your wireless network and its bandwidth will overlap with your neighbor's, and his network will overlap with the next house, and so forth.

The main problem is how to sort out IP addresses and domain names in the new Internet. Anything centralized can easily become regulated by the government, especially over IP and domain name conflicts. You know the mess Network Solutions and the other domain registrars are if something goes awry with a domain name.

The secondary problem, where the government could step in and try to stop this, is when someone along the line connects his network to the old Internet through his ISP and allows anyone on the new Internet to access his subscription-based bandwidth. That is the big no-no, but hopefully, the rest of us users on the new Internet can convince the government and the ISP to only punish that one user, and not the rest of us.

In defense of the Internet as it is now, we are blessed that ICANN is based in the United States. Other nations have grumbled that they have been shut out of IP and domain distribution, but ultimately, the ability to cancel domain names and static IPs is the key to censoring the Internet. If you have a Web site that criticizes a repressive government, and IP addresses are controlled by that government, then that government could simply revoke your site's domain name and static IP, or if it is a site on GeoCities or your ISP's Web space, it could threaten to revoke those companies' domain names and static IPs.

The Internet may be the best media tool out there for us poltical gadflies, but we take for granted the ease of use we have because of static IP assignment and domain names. Without these, the Internet would be much, much harder to use for communication. ~ Michael.

Why the internet shouldn't be censored, you ask?

Because we are violating the 1st amendment in doing so.
-enough said

i'm not American so I can't really use that but thanks anyway

F.u.c.k censorship, it only makes the thing worse than it already is. If people didn't make such a big deal, then streakers would be fine. As for the soccer moms, well, they should be hung, shot and run over by one of those kickass Panzers.

I hope it won't get censored...

The best way to work out the counter arguements for this is for someone to take the opposite side. Then you can work out a comeback for whatever the moral purists try to say.

Why the internet shouldn't be censored, you ask?

Because we are violating the 1st amendment in doing so.
-enough said

i'm not American so I can't really use that but thanks anyway

Are you British?

If so you could use the arguement that it is illegal ever since the high court ruled on the side of free of press all those years ago. Also I think the ECHR (incorporated in 1999) allows freedom of expression and of information, although I suggest you check on that.

I really couldn't think of a reason NOT to censor the internet. Considering all the crap we find here and there


NO! I DO NOT CARE THAT YOUR MOOD IS: ^_^!!!

If internet should be censored you must as well censor people in their own homes. You're not exactly making some kind of public speech, people does not occasionally hear you on the internet, they have chosen to do it.

Tink, here you can find the ECHP (http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html).

Try Articles 8, 10, 11 & 16

I really couldn't think of a reason NOT to censor the internet. Considering all the crap we find here and there


NO! I DO NOT CARE THAT YOUR MOOD IS: ^_^!!!

Because if we start censoring content on the Internet simply because you don't want to see it, then opinions like the one you just expressed start getting censored as well. While you may not care to hear about the opinions of other people, I'm willing to bet that you don't want to have yourself censored.

Because an electron does not neccessarily belong to a given jursidiction.


Case in point: The FCC cannot charge a Canadian radio station with it's new silly fines even if that station's signal bleeds across the border.

So censoring "the internet" is inherently a jusrisdictional problem. that being said, the application of existing limitations on speech such as inciting to violence etc. could be seen as being reasoable when applied information on domestic servers.

-Z-

bump

bump

thanks for all the help, i won the debate (probably because out of the 12 people that voted 10 were guys so i made a big deal about porn)

Why the internet shouldn't be censored, you ask?

Because we are violating the 1st amendment in doing so.
-enough said

Seconded ~ by the 2nd Amendment!

I'm doing a debate on Wednesday called

''This house thinks the Internet should be censored''

i have to argue AGAINST it and i would really appreciate some good arguments for why the internet SHOULDN'T be censored.


NB: DO NOT POST REASONS WHY THE INTERNET SHOULD BE CENSORED BECAUSE THEY'RE NO GOOD TO ME!

thank-you xxxxXxxxx
The internet is already being censored. Just look at nationstates. If a country wanted to use a Nazi flag for their country, they will be banned. If a country has a motto that offends someone, they will be banned.

censorship is already here, just the federal government has not instituted it yet.

i've done the debate now, you can let the thread die

NEVER SAY DIE!