Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    should the state be able to censor the internet? To what extent?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No. It starts with the internet then it moves to other things. The internet is one of the last places where you can freely read second opinions without government mass media.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    No. Censorship of the internet should not even be considered.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    No. Censorship of the internet should not even be considered.
    But shhh, don't tell the mods...


    I don't see why the internet is special, why it 'has' to be treated differently to tv, film, newspapers, etc. It's made by humans, it's operated by humans, it's accessed by humans... Why shouldn't humans control what's on it?

    Why should it be a lawless freeforall?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    But shhh, don't tell the mods...


    I don't see why the internet is special, why it 'has' to be treated differently to tv, film, newspapers, etc. It's made by humans, it's operated by humans, it's accessed by humans... Why shouldn't humans control what's on it?

    Why should it be a lawless freeforall?
    We already have laws though. e.g. If I send a death threat to someone, I will get in trouble for it whether I do it by phone, by letter, or over the internet. That's not the same thing as genuine censorship.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phaedron)
    should the state be able to censor the internet? To what extent?
    No. Even if it were possible, no.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    We already have laws though. e.g. If I send a death threat to someone, I will get in trouble for it whether I do it by phone, by letter, or over the internet. That's not the same thing as genuine censorship.
    A degree of censorship is still censorship, even if it's not 100%.
    If they're putting in the limits like you say, they're still censoring the content of the internet. Rightly, too.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RFowler)
    No. Censorship of the internet should not even be considered.
    Do your saying that Child Porn and Paedophiles rings should be left in place then?

    Your saying that Online Bulying should be ignored and kids left to their own devices?

    They are just a few examples I could go on, I do agree that to a certain extent the Internet should be free but it needs to be policed to a certain extent.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shabalala)
    Do your saying that Child Porn and Paedophiles rings should be left in place then?

    Your saying that Online Bulying should be ignored and kids left to their own devices?

    They are just a few examples I could go on, I do agree that to a certain extent the Internet should be free but it needs to be policed to a certain extent.
    I wouldn't consider that to be "censorship", and in most cases it is covered by existing laws. Maybe I could have worded it better.

    It all depends on what you class as "censorship", I suppose. When I hear that word I think of free speech issues, not child pornography.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The problem is that we're mostly armchair activists. They made Female ejaculation and spanking illegal acts to epict in Uk porn and I dont see anyone kicking up anything more than a mildly unpleasant odour. If the government were to start monitoring our phone lines we'd take it lying down. The government performs the very acts it has banned on the public.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No I support full free speech even if offensive, unless of course it's extreme like kill so and so then that's too far.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlayerOfTroll)
    No I support full free speech even if offensive, unless of course it's extreme like kill so and so then that's too far.
    So you don't support full free speech.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SlayerOfTroll)
    No I support full free speech even if offensive, unless of course it's extreme like kill so and so then that's too far.
    Yeah this is typical of humanity and its why we'll always be kept on the shortest of leashes by our government. That rule exception is precisely what the government prey on in order to control the internet. What constitutes extreme is subject to change
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Some regulation is fine - for example, I think it's possible to commit crimes on the internet, so laws regarding those should be enforced.

    But as for the regulation of content, no, it's a waste of time and money to try, outside of well-defined areas (e.g. specific websites).
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.