![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Serious entry, for once
May. 30th, 2006 10:23 pmFrom ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
beckymonster's journal:
Want to see the less-than-slender end of a *very* thick wedge?
Amnesty International anti-net censorship campaign
Now I daresay all the 'pro' arguments will be wrapped up in very alluring packaging - 'we have to protect children from x,y,z', 'some net content is not merely offensive, it's positively evil', 'we have a duty of care to those less able/mature/discerning than ourselves to make sure that they don't see things that might disturb them' -- all very sane and reasonable on the surface. Yeah, seen 'em all before. *Exactly* the same arguments used by fundies everywhere, no matter what their stripe.
But, bottom line? This would be a *very* dangerous line for governments to take - and it seems to me that it's more than possible that many, many governments would subscribe to this for a variety of reasons: for example, the US because it's currently rabidly anti-terrorist, the Chinese, Iranians et.al. because it suits their intentions for internal repression, my own government because they're basically a nosey lot of buggers who seem to want to know *everyhing* about *everybody* regardless of whether the information is useful to them or not (as witness the current fad for control by default through passport possession being linked to chipped national ID cards) all wrapped up in the 'fight against terrorism'. Strange collection of bedfellows, no? All using the same 'reasonable' arguments for their own ends.
No, on a personal level, the tools are all already in place to avoid seeing material you don't want to see, and for preventing your children from seeing material you don't feel it suitable for them to see. On a national level, various agencies have more than enough power over individual lives. And to say, in effect, 'we support freedom of speech - but only for people we approve of' is mealy mouthed and dishonest.
This kind of sledgehammer will annihilate far more than the nut. Go sign. Please. You'll maybe live to regret it if you don't. More, spread the word - the more signatures, the better :-)
beckymonster's journal:Want to see the less-than-slender end of a *very* thick wedge?
Amnesty International anti-net censorship campaign
Now I daresay all the 'pro' arguments will be wrapped up in very alluring packaging - 'we have to protect children from x,y,z', 'some net content is not merely offensive, it's positively evil', 'we have a duty of care to those less able/mature/discerning than ourselves to make sure that they don't see things that might disturb them' -- all very sane and reasonable on the surface. Yeah, seen 'em all before. *Exactly* the same arguments used by fundies everywhere, no matter what their stripe.
But, bottom line? This would be a *very* dangerous line for governments to take - and it seems to me that it's more than possible that many, many governments would subscribe to this for a variety of reasons: for example, the US because it's currently rabidly anti-terrorist, the Chinese, Iranians et.al. because it suits their intentions for internal repression, my own government because they're basically a nosey lot of buggers who seem to want to know *everyhing* about *everybody* regardless of whether the information is useful to them or not (as witness the current fad for control by default through passport possession being linked to chipped national ID cards) all wrapped up in the 'fight against terrorism'. Strange collection of bedfellows, no? All using the same 'reasonable' arguments for their own ends.
No, on a personal level, the tools are all already in place to avoid seeing material you don't want to see, and for preventing your children from seeing material you don't feel it suitable for them to see. On a national level, various agencies have more than enough power over individual lives. And to say, in effect, 'we support freedom of speech - but only for people we approve of' is mealy mouthed and dishonest.
This kind of sledgehammer will annihilate far more than the nut. Go sign. Please. You'll maybe live to regret it if you don't. More, spread the word - the more signatures, the better :-)
