We like some kinds of internet censorship – child pornography for example. I hope we won’t ever support censorship of political opinions as seems to be the case in Turkey in the United States.

I’m one of the few souls who’s actually been on the Internet since 1978. From the time when you couldn’t be on the internet (then the ArpaNet from the Dept. of Defense) without being on a campus with defense contracts, until now, the one issue that goes back and forth all the time is the one of responsibility for the bad stuff that is on the net. The tradeoff is between making the ISPs responsible for everyone they sign up (why would anyone want to be an ISP under those conditions?) and making each individual responsible for whatever they do (but then you have to monitor every one of the users and catch them at it and prove it was them). The complexity of the net makes it near impossible to really enforce things. Hackers are enterprising and creative, and respond quickly, and security is always a moving target.

What can be done, however, is to insist that software manufacturers make computer systems less “hackable” (one vendor I can think of has been intentionally insecure for years and was even targeted by the computer czar of the Bush administration for it’s preference for sharing data and making things easier for the user over keeping users and their networks safe), and provide ways for individual users to “lock down” their systems at their own comfort level. If they miss some mail because it might have bad stuff in it, the ISP won’t have to listen to them complain, and if what they consider objectionable isn’t objectionable to someone else, they can cut it off without forcing an ISP to cut off their other users. Once you open the door to let the government make those choices, politics will always sneak in.

I personally am tired of ‘Politics as usual’ and the threat to our Freedom of Speech, part of which is the “Fairness Doctrine” now being bunted around to stop talk radio shows that have conservative commentators. The joke is that almost ALL of the mainstream media is left leaning and doesn’t give all of the story, just their spin on the story or not to do the story at all (for example, MSNBC’s commentators during the Presidential debates.

I am all for removing pornography from the Internet, but since that is impossible, the parents not letting their children use the home PC as an alternate babysitter as the television. (It’s really a sad commentary on our society that they now have to do commercials to get kids outside to play).

Censorship adds to the ‘dumbing down’ of the United States that has been going on for years (as a former teacher, I know this 1st hand that, saddly, this it true.)

Part of this ‘dumbing down’ is that an trillion dollar plus Bill was passed this weekend and was signed today without even the signers reading the Bill. I know most of us read the fine print before EVER signing a contract (or I hope most of us do; I know my husband and I read everything before signing). To me, the American people not being permitted to read the Bill is down right scary.

I think ALL of us should make our voices heard on this issue.

The issue of content regulation of the Internet has been a topic of discussion for a long time. Comparing content regulation of the Internet to radio or television is not a good comparison. Broadcast stations use radio wave frequencies that in effect prohibit others from using those frequencies. Not every voice that wants to broadcast (even if they had enough money to build their own station) can do so. Broadcasting has always been regulated differently from print media due to this. So it is better to compare Internet content regulation with print regulation.

The Internet allows all voices to be heard. The traditional gatekeeping functions (for good and bad) associated with traditional mass media no longer exist since the distinction between sender and receiver no longer exists.

The issue of regulation across national boundaries complicates things even more. Do you regulate based on where someone is receiving content or where the content is originating from? U.S. obscenity law is based on the concept of contemporary community standards. If we agree on the importance of standards differing based on local community, how can one argue that one standard for Internet content should be applied to all nations?

You probably know about the Preamble to the Constitution, but did you even know that there is a Preamble to the Bill of Rights? Now why would there be a Preamble to the Bill of Rights?

It’s there to RESTRICT the power of the Government – to RESERVE that power to the GOVERNED. The Preamble reads in part, “… in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

“Amendment I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Is there stuff that I find objectionable on the internet? Of course!

However, it shocks me, and it grieves me when well-meaning people ask for some form of Government censorship. Censorship is, and should be, internal. If there’s something ‘out there’ that I don’t like, I am quite able to censor myself – and I am quite able to use that as a learning experience for my children. Self-censorship is the only legitimate form of censorship.

@Ted Schwalbe Broadcast stations use radio wave frequencies that in effect prohibit others from using those frequencies. Not every voice that wants to broadcast (even if they had enough money to build their own station) can do so.

I realize we are discussing the internet, but I was taking the discussion further, i.e. the “fairness doctrine” which was revoke under Ronald Reagan and an attempt at which is now being attempted back in place.

So far as the interet; answer this question: It was promised by the POTUS that ALL bills would be posted on the internet 5 days prior to being signed. The latest Bill was not only NOT placed on the internet, but even the signers didn’t read it. Why? What was the massive rush to sign but not read a bill with trillions of dollars that are going to have to be paid by the people to bail out big business?

By the way, Larry Flint asked for a bail out because pornography is free and readily available on the internet, thereby he’s losing money on Hustler magazine.

I was to know what the American people are paying for and I want to have had the opportunity I was promised to read the Bill (I could have read it in less than 5 days) but wasn’t permitted to read DUE TO CENSORSHIP. Is that germane to the discussion now?

<a @Ted Schwalbe Broadcast stations use radio wave frequencies that in effect prohibit others from using those frequencies. Not every voice that wants to broadcast (even if they had enough money to build their own station) can do so.

I forgot to address this as far as talk radio: the ultra left wing has had the money and attempted and failed as no one was listening. Seems they got what they wanted thru the regular news media.

A few people so far have mentioned objectionable things on the Internet (lack of security, pornography, child porn). Maybe it’s because I am in the age group where I grew up with a computer always in the classroom (even if it was an old Apple IIe), but from my perspective, these are the same concerns people have to deal with outside the digital realm.

If something is illegal, such as breaking and entering (hacking) and exploitation of children, then it is similarly illegal online. Teenagers below the age of 18 have always been able to get their hands on pornography. How is it any different online?

I feel like the issue of censorship of the Internet is just an easy out. Parents protect their kids in the physical word by keeping an eye on them. By checking in on their activities. By meeting their friends. In an age were parents are accustomed to the TV being a surrogate parent at times, many of them feel the computer should be the same because “Hey! It’s just another piece of electronic equipment!” Except it isn’t. A kid trolling through chat rooms, using Facebook, et cetera may as well be out walking the street for all the accessibility they have to other people, publications, products, and other people have access to them. The answer to that is for parents to respond appropriately and monitor the Internet use of their children just like they would if they child was going to be out at the mall or walking down the street, not to decide to throw the First Amendment out the window.

And, honestly, if you as an adult are offended by something, just don’t look at it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to go to pornographic websites. Nobody is forcing you to use your credit card or do your banking online. It’s convenient and more risky, just like using an ATM is more risky than going into a bank to withdraw your money.

All right, Linda: let’s take the conversation further.

Your initial premises are false and questionable, respectively:

First, that “almost ALL of the mainstream media is left leaning.” You have zero proof of that assertion (other than Nixonian paranoia going back to the 1962 Calif. gubernatorial campaign — “You won’t have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.”) and a plethora of studies proving EXACTLY the opposite.

Corollary: If bias is BAD, as you imply, then how do you justify defending an utterly biased (and openly biased) group of talk radio hosts? You can’t claim that bias in the MSM is negative, but YOUR biased bunch is, therefore positive. Judges and Moms agree: two wrongs do not make a right.

Secondly, your claim “I forgot to address this as far as talk radio: the ultra left wing has had the money and attempted and failed as no one was listening. Seems they got what they wanted thru the regular news media” is, if not false, then highly questionable, at best.

I have watched the rise of Leftie talk radio, and have noticed two salient facts: first that the shows do just fine, WHEN NOT INTERFERED WITH. Secondly, that they have been interfered with, are being interfered with, and there is no “free market” whatsoever (which is what you imply).

The radio stations are controlled by media monopolies, like Clear Channel and Cumulus Broadcasting, who have DEMONSTRABLY refused to carry syndication and have literally killed progressive talk stations (like KLSD in San Diego) to go to far less profitable formats (like “sports talk” — a favorite Clear Channel dodge).

The rise of this monopolistic grasp of right wing radio can be laid directly at the feet of the Reagan Administration’s suspension of the Fairness Doctrine, in 1986, which is, not coincidentally, when Rush Limbaugh’s “I win debates with myself” program went on the air on KFBK in Sacramento, California.

Since that time, the profusion of right wing radio has marched in lockstep with conservative takeover of the airwaves, loss of local ownership and the rise of the huge chains of stations. In that time, the PUBLIC airwaves have been taken over almost entirely by one political point of view, and the attempt at equalization (not counting the local hosts driven from the air) has been actively squelched by the ownership and management.

The purpose of the “Fairness Doctrine” was to ensure that what HAS happened DIDN’T happen — which was envisioned when the “Fairness Doctrine” was originally minted. Turns out they were right.

They remain the PUBLIC airwaves, and the nearly exclusive ownership of that radio spectrum by one ideology is antithetical to the notion of “public” airwaves: check the results of the last election and ask yourself, “How is it that more than half of the public is NOT served by the “public” airwaves?”

Now, stop making false and pejorative assertions and make your case based on the facts.

I have been on the net since 1978 and have recently been wondering just how much censorship there might currently be. I realize there is publically supported ban of child porn (I disagree with even this), and know that in many countries there is censorship that their public may not even realize is taking place.

Thus my query… What censorship do you suspect is currently taking place in the USA? In the rest of the “free world”?

William Hanna wonders “What censorship do you suspect is currently taking place in the USA? In the rest of the “free world”?” Sadly, self-censorship, which is the worst kind. When the individual thought, the single basis point of an idea, is stifled due to fear of reprisal or ridicule, why would a government need to intercede.

@Hart Williams

Exactly what part of “Congress shall pass NO LAW” don’t you comprehend?

To Joe, you go guy!

To Hart: Have you read the recent trillion plus dollar stimus package signed yet on the internet yet? Is so, post a link. If not, neither did the signers. There are so many other things in my post you did not address and the ones you did address I could read at the leftists handbook that further discussion with you (other than the web like I’ve asked you for) are useless.

YouTube currently stops video counters for many of the most popular videos with themes unsupportive of our curent political elite(on the left and right). They also delete user accounts of people posting too many videos questioning what happened at WTC 7…the 7/7 London Attacks(particularly the Peter Power incident)…the global warming scam etc.

Joe: If you’re going to make “brilliant” observations, you need to read carefully. The First Amendment does not apply to commercial speech. There is a wealth of material available online by which you may educate yourself, since, clearly you’re not a Constitutional expert. You might start at Findlaw.

Linda: First of all, I made rational arguments, which you refuse to answer, relying instead on the tired old stratagem of sneering and snarking and belittling as a substitute for rational thought.

BTW: we were talking about censorship, which you hijacked by sheer selfish stubbornness into some “Fairness Doctrine” rant. YTou were presented with a rational rebuttal and a challenge to provide evidence, and you respond with neither rational defense nor evidence to buttress your position. Instead, you respond with non-sequitur and condescension.

You have neither written NOR argued ANYTHING that would justify your condescension to anyone on this thread, please note, so, whether it is delusional or defensive is a question for another day. What IS indisputable is that said condescension is entirely unwarranted.
(Please provide notarized affadavits attesting to, and your documentation proving that you are, in fact, the Queen of the May, if you disagree.)

And now you want to make some “obvious” point about the stimulus bill — which is a non-sequitur.

But, for the greater good, I’ll answer you anyway. In fact, I downloaded the Stimulus Bill .pdfs from the congressional site*, and, unlike Rush, I searched for keywords, since I wanted to see whether tax code changes were going to be for 2009 or retroactive for this year.

[* Download Timestamp: Friday, 13 Feb. 2009; 9:57 PM PST]

You’re smart. The stimulus bill was easy to find. I can’t spoon feed you.

But where did you learn that sneering at arguments you either don’t understand or can’t answer is either an ethical OR moral response?

To everyone else, I know this thread is about censorship, and I appreciate your thoughts, although I have nothing to add.

Save this grace note on style: Reasonable men can disagree reasonably — that is the bedrock on which the Constitution rises or falls — but unreasonable men (and women) can only, evidently, manage to be disagreeable.*

* BTW: Where can I pick up a copy of “the leftists [sic] handbook”? I’d like to read it. Do you have the URL(s)?

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/72006f.asp

I cannot believe that the government now OWNS interests in private enterprise. I have heard about such things, but they were always characterized as being Socialistic in nature. Has the banana peel dropped by FDR finally been stepped on and become the slippery slide of the Obama Administration?

Also, how are they planning to get around the Supreme Courts ruling on firearms ownership as they try to disarm the citizenry? We should always remember that it was an armed citizenry who wrested our independence from the British, and that particular amendment was placed into the Constitution of the United States as a SAFEGUARD for the people to protect themselves from an opressive, dictatorial government that is not “. . . by for, and of . . .” the people.

I am not one of those 32.5% over 65 blue hairs who feels that the government should regulate the content. My grandchildren often use my computer. I have controls who won’t allow them to visit certain sites and I always look at where they have been when they log off. One of them can no longer spend time on my computer because he didn’t follow the rules. It is an excellent educational tool and allows me to view opinions on both sides and I spend a great deal of time expanding my horizons. My worry is that it is too easy to erase information – which really did happen to some negative Utubes on Obama during the election. Free speech must remain free – regardless of the method. Don’t like the content, take off your glasses, turn off your hearing aid or log out.

@A. Sceptic

I cannot agree with you more. It really irks me that some people insist on censoring content on the Internet that they find objectionable.

The same goes for TV, Radio and Printed Media. If they do not like what is currently being broadcast or written then simply do not read or listen to it but DO NOT deny others the ability to make up their own mind as to whether they want to be exposed to it.

One of the biggest problems with Society today is people constantly forcing their own morals on others.

The Internet should be an open forum without ANY type of censorship by anyone and especially not by the Government. I do not feel that it is the Government’s or anyone else’s job to tell me what I should or should not be reading or looking at. Once that starts to happen it will eventually encompass every aspect of the Net and we will only get the sanitized version of what is really going on in the world.

We must have freedom of the Net to monitor what the Government is doing in our name since the Press has forsaken its Constitutional Mandate to keep us informed. If we lose this ability to monitor the protection of our Freedoms we contribute to the eventual destruction of Democracy.

The government currently censors the Internet available in schools and public libraries by a very simple expedient – control of funding. If a school or library does not filter the Internet content it makes available, it will not receive funds under the “E-rate” program. This is money that comes from the Universal Service Fee added to telephone bills. For over 99% of public libraries in America, this money is what makes high-speed Internet access affordable. A few libraries in wealthy areas or with creative funding have turned down this money so they would not have to filter content. While many libraries would filter malicious or criminal content at the least, there is resentment at being made to filter so as to provide Internet services to the public.

@Hart Williams
“I have watched the rise of Leftie talk radio, and have noticed two salient facts: first that the shows do just fine, WHEN NOT INTERFERED WITH. Secondly, that they have been interfered with, are being interfered with, and there is no “free market” whatsoever (which is what you imply).

The radio stations are controlled by media monopolies, like Clear Channel and Cumulus Broadcasting, who have DEMONSTRABLY refused to carry syndication and have literally killed progressive talk stations (like KLSD in San Diego) to go to far less profitable formats (like “sports talk” — a favorite Clear Channel dodge).”

Since when is a business selling what the wish to sell or a radio station broadcasting what it wishes to broadcast, irrespective of profit margin so long as it’s within the confines of the law, defined as “interfering?” The definition of “interfering” in the dictionary that refers to radio waves means interfering with the actual transmission. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interfere. Interfering is not the same as censorship.

“Joe: If you’re going to make “brilliant” observations, you need to read carefully. The First Amendment does not apply to commercial speech. There is a wealth of material available online by which you may educate yourself, since, clearly you’re not a Constitutional expert. You might start at Findlaw.”

1. The Supreme Court has ruled that commercial speech is protected by the First Amendment “from unwarranted governmental regulation,” although its nature makes such communication subject to greater limitations than can be imposed on expression not solely related to the economic interests of the speaker and its audience. Source: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557, 561 (1980).

2) If you’re going to preach to others about condescension, then you should avoid it yourself. As you accurately pointed out, “Judges and Moms agree: two wrongs do not make a right” and you could end up with foot in mouth disease.

“They remain the PUBLIC airwaves, and the nearly exclusive ownership of that radio spectrum by one ideology is antithetical to the notion of “public” airwaves: check the results of the last election and ask yourself, “How is it that more than half of the public is NOT served by the “public” airwaves?”

1) This makes no sense. A quick check of the last election led me to understand that the democrats won by a large margin. This data does not support your assertion that “more than half of the public is NOT served by the “public” airwaves.” Can you provide some data to support your so-far unsupported assertion.

2) They’re not really “public” airwaves. They’re owned by the federal government and leased for commercial use through the FCC so long as the broadcaster is determined to be transmitting “in the public interest.” If the FCC determines it’s in the public interest, so be it. Source: http://www.fcc.gov

I could go on pointing out the holes in your uniformed and unsupported positions, but I really don’t have the time. As you mentioned to Linda, “stop making false and pejorative assertions and make your case based on the facts.”

I confess to being a Bill of Rights purest.

Zogby says Google and others “work with” governments to conform with a country’s laws. What they don’t say is that Google, Microsoft and others agree to develop software that will, for example, assist the Chinese government in tracking down individual dissidents who use forbidden words like “freedom” and “democracy” on line, so they can be sentenced to ten years in prison.

No matter how the media changes through time there are always people who would like to turn off their brains and let somebody else do the thinking.

In the past eight years this country has seen an authoritarian administration that has undermined the Bill of Rights in many ways. Pending in the congress right now is the Violent Radicalization, and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act which labels the internet as a tool for terrorists which can only be combated by government control of content, and among other things create “committees” that go from city to city holding hearings, and interrogating people whose speech they don’t like.

Like the other amendments of the Bill of Rights that have been undermined, we will play hell getting freedom of speech back once it is gone. So let’s keep it!

What is it with you “Conservatives” that you don’t seem to ever want to answer the Zogby question, and instead natter on about something you learned on FOX? This is boring. Hart, don’t fall for it. Go check the other questions. Same song different verse.

@Jaime
The answer to the question is no. Censorship is bad. There’s ll kinds up repugnant crap on the web, on the TV, and in print. If you don’t like something, change the channel or cancel your subscription. If you’re a parent, be an adult and supervise your kids. What’s your point of view?

Notice Hart hasn’t responded. I’m betting that’s because he knows he’s been exposed as pretty much a known-nothing and was just parroting some nonsense he read on a website run by a “Creative Class” genius.

What is it with all you “liberals” that don’t ever want to hear anything contrary to your MSNBC talking points? I thought you were the ones who are open-minded.

@Linda

Hart Williams…. my hats off to you

Linda, are you serious, if you are going to use Anne Coulter as a example of the Rightwing to get your point across, well that says a whole lot about you!