1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

UK joins China, Saudi Arabia and Pennsylvania

Discussion in 'The OT' started by MarkA, Jun 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jun 7, 2004 #1 of 14
    MarkA

    MarkA God Bless America! DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,538
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    The United Kingdom has joined China, Saudi Arabia, and Pennsylvania in censoring the Internet. For now, it's only BT (British Telecom) subscribers that are affected but the plan is to cover all Internet access. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06/07/bt_cleanfeed_analysis/ For now the system only officialy censors child porn, which I acknowledge should be removed from the Internet (by going after the source). But once a system like this is in place (it's being tested right now on BT, trust me - it'll become the entire UK soon enough) they can really block just about anything they want and there's not a thing the people can do about it. Scary.
     
  2. Jun 7, 2004 #2 of 14
    Steveox

    Steveox Banned User

    2,106
    0
    Apr 21, 2004
    Yeah heres Pennsylvania`s new state flag.
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Jun 7, 2004 #3 of 14
    MarkA

    MarkA God Bless America! DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,538
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    I didn't mean to offend any Pennsylvanians (or Chinese or British or Saudi Arabians). I just worry that once this type of system is installed it may be used to block political speech.
     
  4. Jun 8, 2004 #4 of 14
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    I'm not familiar with the reference to Pennsylvania. WHat kind of censorship issue happened there?
     
  5. Jun 8, 2004 #5 of 14
    MarkA

    MarkA God Bless America! DBSTalk Gold Club

    2,538
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Pennsylvania is another system designed, in theory, just to block child porn (A GOOD THING TO BLOCK! Don't get me wrong.). It's the fact that once they've got the system in place, I can see a lot of political speech sites mysteriously containing child porn... Maybe I'm paranoid, but it worries me. A system like this has no real checks and balances to make sure it isn't abused.
     
  6. Jun 8, 2004 #6 of 14
    Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    You aren't paranoid. This type of thing (just like the dispicable, commie DMCA) is designed to be abused. The child porn thing is just an excuse to get this implimented, because after all, who in their right mind would argue against getting rid of child porn?
     
  7. Jun 8, 2004 #7 of 14
    HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    I've said all along, the ultimate goal of the extreme right-wing conservatives is total domination and turning the USA into a theocracy. They will toss out all those inconvenient Constitutional Amendments first chance they get. It may take several decades, but unless their attempts are quashed, our country will not be the "land of the free" much longer. You can say that is a wild conspiracy theory, and I agree that it does sound as much. But just look at the pattern that is taking place. It is difficult to make it out to be anything other than what I stated.

    Where I live they not only dominate politically, but use their majority to intimidate everyone else to conform. It's becoming Stepford country!
     
  8. Jun 8, 2004 #8 of 14
    Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Ok. THAT's grassy knoll type stuff. There really are very few people who want that to happen.
     
  9. Jun 8, 2004 #9 of 14
    djlong

    djlong Hall Of Fame

    4,343
    57
    Jul 8, 2002
    New Hampshire
    I believe that's his point - that it's the *extreme* right wing.
     
  10. Tyralak

    Tyralak Icon

    926
    0
    Jan 24, 2004
    Libertarians are extreme right-wing. They're further right than Republicans. I think it's just the kooks that are off the scale who want the kind of thing Happy was discribing.
     
  11. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    I agree that those who actively seek that are relatively few. However, those who aren't as extreme but simply consider themselves "conservative" will end up supporting the extremists for a long time until they realize, too late in some cases, the actual agenda. It's a whittling process, a little here a little there, this right restricted here, this other one there... a gradual process that won't be evident until it's too late.

    Will that happen? I hope not, I hope we all realize sooner rather than later. But right now we're in a downward slope. Most people aren't extreme, but many will tolerate the extremists because they advocate similar "values".
     
  12. toenail

    toenail Hall Of Fame

    1,085
    0
    Oct 15, 2002
    I was going to write that the blocking of political speech would be such a blatant violation of the First Amendment that it's ludicrous to even conceive of. Then I remembered McCain-Feingold, and realized I thought the same thing about that. Then the US Supreme Court said it was legal. So, now I'm not so sure. Interestingly, Happy, that bill was more strongly supported by liberals than conservatives. So, maybe we have something to fear from both sides, huh?
     
  13. HappyGoLucky

    HappyGoLucky Banned User

    5,124
    0
    Jan 11, 2004
    I would not disagree with you there. At least when it comes to politicians. Sometimes it seems as if much of the "debate" in our legislature is a well-choreographed dance between the right and left, with the end result worked out well in advance, the dance just for show. In the skirmishes, sometimes the right wins, sometimes the left, but in the end they all get the preconceived result that was decided from the beginning. Note that I am only saying what is the appearance, I have no way to prove or disprove the validity. It is simply an observation of a long period and noticing patterns that keep repeating.

    More troubling than McCain-Feingold, to me, is the "Free Speech Zones" that Bush's handlers have instituted. There have been some seriously egregious violations of 1st Amendment rights in that regard, much of which goes unreported in the mainstream media. I've personally witnessed a few instances where there was never a mention in the major print or TV/Radio outlets. When you tell of these events, many people will simply say, "oh, that couldn't really happen, you must be mistaken," or "if that really happened we'd hear about it on the news,", etc. But that's the thing, we're NOT hearing about it and it really IS happening. Very odd and disturbing.

    http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html
    http://www.scpronet.com/freespeech.html
    http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Nov/11092003/commenta/109238.asp
    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/US/WorldNewsTonight/protest_zones_031112.html
    http://www.arktimes.com/reporter/031114reportera.html

    And for those who won't believe anything unless it's on FoxNews:
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,96474,00.html

    http://www.aclufl.org/news_events/archive/2002/tampaprotestors110102.cfm
     
  14. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,866
    189
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Everyone gives lip service to freedom of speech, but there are always some on both sides of the political continuum who would attempt to curtail the speech of those with whom they disagree.

    "Everyone who agrees with me is intelligent, thoughtful and right, but those idiots who disagree with me are obviously stupid, ignorant dolts who are only centimeters away from Neanderthals."

    This 'I'm right, you're wrong' mentality is counter-productive and prevents those with divergent opinions from achieving any degree of consensus or compromise. That's why we usually bring irreconcilable issues to a public vote at some point, and ultimately end up petitioning the courts for redress if we don't get our way - the grown-up version of falling on the floor kicking and screaming.

    As long as we keep talking, we can avoid shooting each other.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page