Poll - Illegal websites

  DieSse 14:25 29 May 06
Locked

Regulating "illegal" websites is the thin end of a dangerous wedge.

After all, it all depends on what is defined as illegal. If the UK implemented such a regulation - with what moral authority could we complain if the Chinese, or North Koreans do it too?

  GANDALF <|:-)> 14:36 29 May 06

'After all, it all depends on what is defined as illegal'...It is quite simple, illegal is as defined in each country's statute laws. therefore there will be a variance.

G

  DieSse 15:36 29 May 06

.

Do you really need someone to tell you what you can and can't look at?

Would you trust any government to define that for you? - or any unelected "board"?

If there are anti-terrorisms law in the UK, which can be (and have been) used to to prevent such things as a civilian reading out lists of war dead, hecklers in party conferences, rude T-shirts, and the like - do you think these sort of things shouldbe restricted for us on the web.

There are many anti-libertarian laws in China - do you think if the UK had a law against viewing illegal things on the web, the Chinese would be equally justified in doing so?

  GANDALF <|:-)> 15:51 29 May 06

'Do you really need someone to tell you what you can and can't look at?'..Yes.

'Would you trust any government to define that for you? - or any unelected "board"?'...Yes they already do and seem to be doing a reasonable job, could be a bit stronger on some forms of Pr0n but each to their own.

'If there are anti-terrorisms law in the UK, which can be (and have been) used to to prevent such things as a civilian reading out lists of war dead, hecklers in party conferences, rude T-shirts, and the like - do you think these sort of things should be restricted for us on the web.'..Yes. It is difficult to instigate a law that has a catch-all cover. It is better to initiate a law that is unfortunately a bit restrictive for some but hits hard at the serious problems. trying to cover every single eventuality would be a nightmare (see the 1200 page motoring offence law bible that even Plod finds downright confusing.) hecklers ought to kep their gobs shut. They only embarrass themselves and make them seem like deranged muppets. There are much better ways to publicise your point than bellowing like a moron. No disrespect but reading lists of war dead does not achieve anything apart from a sore throat and rude T-shirts do not botherme in any way. If people are retarded enough to wear them it is their choice but if I had children and it was flaunted in their faces, I might be tempted to chin the knuckle-dragger wearing it. I don't give a pig's burp what people do in private but in public there should be some respect for others.

'There are many anti-libertarian laws in China - do you think if the UK had a law against viewing illegal things on the web, the Chinese would be equally justified in doing so? yes, it is their country and as we do not like other countries sticking their beaks in the Uk (EEC) nor should we be doing the same in China. China could easily go the wayn of Russia where it becomes a gangster's paradise. They need strong, forceful goverment to mollify the new lust for money.

G

  DieSse 15:57 29 May 06

.

Your views on civil liberties are entertaining, but unsurprising to me.

  iambeavis 16:11 29 May 06

What I view, or choose to view, is my business and nobody else's. I don't need anyone to tell me what is good, bad or dubious - I can figure it out for myself.

  GANDALF <|:-)> 16:58 29 May 06

'I can figure it out for myself'...young children are generally unable to.

G

  GANDALF <|:-)> 17:28 29 May 06

'Wait a minute this device exists. It's called a parent.'....utter rubbish. A parent cannot keep an eye on children all the time and as you were young once you will realise that they are incredibly inquisitive. Restriction is not for the people who say ' I don't need anyone to tell me what is good, bad or dubious - I can figure it out for myself' but as they must know as they can figure it out...it is for those who are less than discerning or understanding.

G

  DieSse 17:41 29 May 06

*Restriction is not for the people who say....*

But of course it is - it's for everybody.

*it is for those who are less than discerning or understanding.*

Ah - there we have it - now we can be divided into "those who can discern and understand" and "those who can't" - I think there were some other regimes who touted the idea of an underclass.

  anskyber 17:48 29 May 06

Hi. Have you been on holiday? It seems like a long time since I have had the pleasure of reading your undiluted opinion. For what it is worth, although the internet has grown up around an ethos of "freedom" to publish seemingly anything and a part of me says the approach is to be applauded, there are times when totally unfettered access cannot be justified.

Some sort of regulatory environment is inevitable and to be honest already exists and certainly does in our non ether world outside of this computing world. However rotten government might be (a non political point by the way) we have got the chance to unseat then every now and again.

Whether the regulatory environment you so strongly support would ever work for those who are determined to access information is another point, but we can try.

  iambeavis 17:55 29 May 06

"Restriction is not for the people who say ' I don't need anyone to tell me what is good, bad or dubious - I can figure it out for myself' but as they must know as they can figure it out... is for those who are less than discerning or understanding.". Restrictions, when they are applied, are applied to all, not just those who are incapable of understanding what may, or may not, be in their best interests.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Sniper Elite 4 review: Headshotting Nazis has never felt so good

1995-2015: How technology has changed the world in 20 years

The Best Design, Illustration, Animation and VFX Awards of 2017

WWDC 2017 dates: How to get WWDC 2017 tickets, when is WWDC 2017 and more details announced