NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been thinking about the freedom of the internet recently, and the anomaly it is with regard to the legal system. As everyone knows, there are many, many things out there on the web that are illegal and potentially dangerous to people and society as a whole, from child pornography to instructions on how to make a bomb and where best to place it to cause maximum casualties. Yet the law is entirely reactive with regards to them; it does nothing to stop them, and has a very low success rate catching those people who access them.

A few months ago one of the Internet Service Providers here in the UK started blocking people using its connection from accessing child porn sites. It refused to log who was attempting to access the material or pass on details to the police; it simply blocked the sites from being seen. Since its introduction it claims to have prevented thousands of attempts to view this material, and several other ISPs have followed suit. In this way, acting proactively rather than after the crime has been committed, I believe internet child porn is being much more effectively contained.

So why do we not extend this theory to all criminal material on the web? This is not to say let the Government decide what they do and don't want you to see; it would simply be a case of if it's illegal offline then it's illegal online. There is no need to track users or surrender any privacy; if you're not meant to be accessing it, then you simply won't be able to.

I'm interested in what people think of this idea. I can see a couple of potential problems in my proposal, but broadly speaking I think it would be a better situation than it is now.

Well, who defines what 'illegal' is? The same persons that always do, the government etc.
Really, I don't like people deciding for me what I can and can't do.

Well, who defines what 'illegal' is? The same persons that always do, the government etc.
Really, I don't like people deciding for me what I can and can't do.
I said I could identify a couple of flaws, and that is one of them. The Government decides what is illegal, so indirectly they are in control.

However, I would reply that this is still no different to real life, where the Government can make what newspapers can and cannot say illegal, for example. It is simply extending the principle to the internet.

Restrict the Internet

No.

Myabe that's why China want their own Internet.

I really can't contribute anything, but what about this more traditional source of questionable legality? Can you resist?
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/156858217X.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

No.

Agreed.

Let me censor the internet. I promise I'll be fair.

Restrict the internet

Like the others said. No, hell no, the internet is free and uncensored, thats one of the best things about it.

Like the others said. No, hell no, the internet is free and uncensored, thats one of the best things about it.
But why allow things online that we don't allow offline?

Governments should not be in a position to censor information. If a network has been used to commit a crime (for example theft or fraud), then there is scope for adapting existing laws to ensure their effectiveness. Blocking access to online content should however be left to network admin. The more widely the responsibility is shared, the lower the impact of any abuses of power.

Governments should not be in a position to censor information. If a network has been used to commit a crime (for example theft or fraud), then there is scope for adapting existing laws to ensure their effectiveness. Blocking access to online content should however be left to network admin. The more widely the responsibility is shared, the lower the impact of any abuses of power.
The Government is already in a position to censor information. The newspapers cannot publish child pornography, nor can the television. If The Sun is found guilty of libel it is forced to pay up; why not The Sun Online? I cannot buy hardcore porn on the highstreet; why can I get it online?

This is not about restricting free speech, it's about bringing the internet in line with existing legislation.

Don't restrict the internets! What will Al Gore, its inventor, say? Or George Bush, where will he find all those lovely rumors of his on?

That's a good idea. Instead of looking at child porn, the pedophiles can be out and about looking at children. :p

I don't like people deciding for me what I can and can't do.
Can you not see just how arrogant and selfish a position like this is???

Well, who defines what 'illegal' is? The same persons that always do, the government etc.
Really, I don't like people deciding for me what I can and can't do.

Exactly.... China anyone?

Exactly.... China anyone?
How is bringing the internet in line with the law the same as a totalitarian Government restricting free speech?

Whose definition of "illeagal content" do we restrict the internet by? American? British? European? Chinease? What if these countries leave things up on the internet? Does every country get a "great firewall of <Insert country here>".

And of course, with all the legislation coming in in America and England, how long until talk on many forums becomes illigal?

Whose definition of "illeagal content" do we restrict the internet by?
The nations. What is illegal is as illegal online as off.

And of course, with all the legislation coming in in America and England, how long until talk on many forums becomes illigal?
That is an argument against Government control, yes, but not about the problem of bringing the internet in line with existing legislation. Whether the Government should or should not be restricting something is a normal, democratic debate; I am suggesting the internet should not be free from that democratic process.

How is bringing the internet in line with the law the same as a totalitarian Government restricting free speech?

This sentence made me laugh a lot. :p

This sentence made me laugh a lot. :p
:rolleyes: Well when you've finished laughing you can answer the question.

The nations. What is illegal is as illegal online as off.
So how to you censor access to other countries who leave material that your country classes as illigal? With the ease of hosting new websites, the task would be an impossible one, unless you censor all sites from other countries.

:rolleyes: Well when you've finished laughing you can answer the question.

Because deciding what can and can't be said, what can and can't be read is restricting free speech and is the biggest step toward a totalitarian government.

So how to you censor access to other countries who leave material that your country classes as illigal? With the ease of hosting new websites, the task would be an impossible one, unless you censor all sites from other countries.
The same way the ISP in Britain has been restricting child porn sites - it simply prevents users from accessing them. It is still reactive in the sense that nothing is blocked until it is known, but it is better than allowing a preventable crime to be committed.

Because deciding what can and can't be said, what can and can't be read is restricting free speech and is the biggest step toward a totalitarian government.
The Government already does this. It's called the law. I am talking about applying the law to a new medium, rather than ignoring it.

This sentence made me laugh a lot. :p

It is funny a funny sentence.

Phylo, you mentioned the nations will dictate what is acceptable. Which nation? Are we going to go with the strictest? How about stuff legal one place and not in another? You are asking for absolute mess trying to dictate it.

It is funny a funny sentence.

Phylo, you mentioned the nations will dictate what is acceptable. Which nation? Are we going to go with the strictest? How about stuff legal one place and not in another? You are asking for absolute mess trying to dictate it.
I'm not talking about a world world ban on internet material, that would be unworkable. What I'm talking about is ISPs in the nation in question restricting access to material that is illegal in that nation. Therefore, things that are legal in another country aren't relevant; it's blocked based on the laws of the home nation.

The same way the ISP in Britain has been restricting child porn sites - it simply prevents users from accessing them. It is still reactive in the sense that nothing is blocked until it is known, but it is better than allowing a preventable crime to be committed.
And yet Child pornography remains all to easily accessable. The biggest argument against restriction is that you can't restrict it. If someone wants their message displayed badly enough, then it will be. Short of draconian restrictions that is unstoppable.

And yet Child pornography remains all to easily accessable. The biggest argument against restriction is that you can't restrict it. If someone wants their message displayed badly enough, then it will be. Short of draconian restrictions that is unstoppable.
I agree, but I don't think what I've proposed is draconian. I'm not claiming it's perfect, just a bit better than a free for all.

The Government already does this. It's called the law. I am talking about applying the law to a new medium, rather than ignoring it.

Why would I want inappropriate laws enforced? There's a law in Connecticut that says I can't walk my duck after 2:00pm. But they don't enforce it. Good thing too. My duck needs his exercise. :p

The other issue is if you restrict illegal material, you lose the moral authority to criticise other people's censorship. Because all they have to do is point back at you and say, hey, in our country this is illegal, and you censor illegal material too.

Why would I want inappropriate laws enforced? There's a law in Connecticut that says I can't walk my duck after 2:00pm. But they don't enforce it. Good thing too. My duck needs his exercise. :p
lol :p

Is child pornography an inappopriate law, though? In Britain, the ISP I'm referring to has blocked nearly 40,000 attempts a month to access this material. Surely extending this isn't a loss of freedom, it's just the sensible thing to do?

The other issue is if you restrict illegal material, you lose the moral authority to criticise other people's censorship. Because all they have to do is point back at you and say, hey, in our country this is illegal, and you censor illegal material too.
No more so than at present. Because I'm talking about extending juristiction rather than creating a new law, such a situation as outlined will already happen, just not on the internet.

There is a difference between an ISP doing it, and the government doing it. Network admin are entitled to do whatever the hell they like to their system. Don't like their policy of blocking content relating to the tax haven of Liechtenstein and cookie-making recipes, take your custom elsewhere. A government law is different. As I said earlier, the more people share a responsibility, the greater the transparency and accountability. You can't leave the internet to the government to regulate.

Is child pornography an inappopriate law, though? In Britain, the ISP I'm referring to has blocked nearly 40,000 attempts a month to access this material. Surely extending this isn't a loss of freedom, it's just the sensible thing to do?
The time would be better spent finding the people who create these sites, and ensuring they are locked up somewhere with out internet acess...

As for some of your other examples, there are myriad grey areas, that would be up to the ISP's discretion under your system. My chemistry text book contains enough information to make a rudimentary explosive - do we block chemistry sites?

lol :p

Is child pornography an inappopriate law, though? In Britain, the ISP I'm referring to has blocked nearly 40,000 attempts a month to access this material. Surely extending this isn't a loss of freedom, it's just the sensible thing to do?

It's appropriate to criminalize the creation of child pornography. It's appropriate to lock away pornographers forever. It's also appropriate to criminalize molesting children. It's appropriate to lock molesters up forever(forever being just long enough to be beaten to death with a broomstick handle by other inmates). In my opinion, it's a stretch to criminalize the viewing of child pornography. As repugnant as I find the subject, it's merely information and I support free access to information. Besides, I'd rather have pedophiles watching than doing.

But what about text? Stories? Computer generated porn? Animation? These are victimless sources of information. They are free speech. In my opinion, they should not be illegal. Hated? Yes. Reviled? Definitely. Banned and barred from viewing by people specifically searching for it? No. Not in any nation claiming to support free speech.

My chemistry text book contains enough information to make a rudimentary explosive - do we block chemistry sites?
LOL, you will find everything you need to manufacture explosives on Wiki, right down to aluminium grinding techniques for thermite. :p

LOL, you will find everything you need to manufacture explosives on Wiki, right down to aluminium grinding techniques for thermite. :p

God Bless Wikipedia. :)

God Bless Wikipedia. :)
We must ban it immediately because it is an unregulated source of information, fact and opinion! :mad:

:D

We must ban it immediately because it is an unregulated source of information, fact and opinion! :mad:

:D

Just like me. :)

The time would be better spent finding the people who create these sites, and ensuring they are locked up somewhere with out internet acess...

As for some of your other examples, there are myriad grey areas, that would be up to the ISP's discretion under your system. My chemistry text book contains enough information to make a rudimentary explosive - do we block chemistry sites?

With the main issue that most who make those sites make them in places where its impossible to catch them. That, or very very hard.

I say nay to government control over the internet.

ISPs have always had control.