web filtering-debate

Post Reply New Topic

-This is a debate-

The motion is for/against web filtering

please state for/against in your reply + a comment




JM

Web filtering is against freedom of information. It is another tool in turning the West into China.

There are ways round filters, though, luckily.

Web filters are essential to business and education, because they ensure productivity and learning by removing the temptation for slacking and shirking.

Federally-mandated web filtering is not just a good idea, it's the law!

I may be the law but common filters go over the top!! !

I'm against web filtering. Sure there is undesirable content out there that children or others could find disturbing, but the problem with web filtering is where does it stop? Some Western governments are increasingly heading towards becoming a police state through a process of erosion of personal privacy and an increase in state control and monitoring. How long before any dissent to such governments is also blocked as "potentially terrorist related".

Those who control the news, information and dissemination of ideas also control the people.

Some folks just don't like being told, "No."

Too bad.

Whoever is paying for the connection should be able to filter it any way they see fit.

in the words of tom petty
''no i wont back down
no i wont back down
you can march me up to the gates of hell
but no i wont back down''

JM

That would be the state then. So nope.

Agreed. This is the basic principle of proprietary action - "MY house, MY connection, MY rules!" makes perfect sense. If a child doesn't like it, then he or she can just go ahead and fund their own connection with their own money in their own house.


"If you are called to be a leader, then you must first be a follower." - Charles Revson (1906-1975), entrepreneur, businessman, multi-millionaire, and philanthropist.

In 1956, Revson established the Charles H. Revson Foundation, which he funded with over $10 million dollars during his lifetime. The Foundation funded schools, hospitals, and service organizations serving the Jewish community, mostly located in New York. Upon his death, Revson endowed the Foundation with $68 million from his estate and granted the board of directors the discretion to chart the Foundation's future course. In 1978, the Foundation began a formal grantmaking process, and since that time, it has disbursed a total of $145 million in grants and its endowment has grown from $68 million to $141 million.

Even a 15-year old self-proclaimed "Computer Genius" must learn to follow the rules ... and the law!

Last edited by Fnord on 14 Jan 2009, 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rules schmules, it's a victimless crime.

Actions mandated by law are never a crime ... unless the law is changed to make it a crime.

Either change the law, learn to live under it, or go somewhere that the law has no effect.

it aint the law where i am mr.pernickity

i aint a genuis i may have diffuicult intrests but no genuisism here

i dont lead

Evidence, Please?


Oh, really?

Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 8:19 pm. Post subject: Computers > LINK TO POST <

One of your two statements is a lie. Which is it?


Then you must learn to follow, or go somewhere that has neither leaders nor followers.

Besides, this whole "debate" is moot. You are not in a position to change anything, even if you post a juvenile rant on every website on the Internet.

I notice both questions read 'get rid of it'. Hobson any help with these choices?...

Filters are a slippery slope. When done by parents on behalf of their children, possibly; for the young ones. There's ways to find out, as they get older, to get around the safeguards.

What I object to is government-created filters. Several nations have political, sexual, and religious filters in place. This negates democracy, because when you restrict the free flow of ideas, you restrict the ability of the populace to intelligently participate in voting and expression.

The EU is moving this way, China has it pretty much locked down, the Middle East has some of the most stringent controls already. If you collectively pooled all these restrictions, there wouldn't be much Internet left.

Fnord, it is a civil right to disagree with the law. Not to break it, perhaps, but as I say, it's a victimless crime.

We are all in a position to effect change.

And don't let anyone tell you different, people!