granted, let's forget about my niece for a sec and ask,
what's wrong with filters to remove child pornography websites, sites on euthanasia or other such horrible and unsuitable sites?
(
Just Flange, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:10,
Reply)
It's also illegal in Australia to name an animal that you plan on killing & eating.
Which surely takes all the fun out of having kids.
(, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:20, Reply)
Sites on euthanasia being horrid and unsuitable is surely a matter of opinion
It's a controversial issue to be sure, but a very subjective one. It may be right for some people, but not for others. I certainly wouldn't presume to tell someone else they were wrong, or a criminal, for helping an elderly\injured relative or friend to die painlessly with dignity.
What about abortion, another controversial issue? Should there be sites that discuss where people can get abortions, if they can't in their home town? Would this apply to people who are carrying their rapists unborn child? As a result of incest?
What about distasteful sites like Fred Phelps' 'God hates fags' website? Whilst I strongly disagree with him, it sets a dangerous precedent to remove someones ability to express an opinion because it differs from your (or societies) own.
(
LemonEntryMyDearWatson This time, Moriarty, the hand is on the other foot, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:19,
Reply)
yes it's a matter of taste as to whether they're suitable for everyone, but it's a matter of law that the practice is illegal.
(
Just Flange, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:21,
Reply)
I have never,
ever, in ten years of being online, EVER seen any child pornography. Ever.
Which makes me think it's not the kind of thing you can stumble upon just by accident - I'd imagine that paedos share images with each other via p2p or something.
And why exactly is a site on euthanasia "horrible and unsuitable"? Because it upsets you?
(
somegreybloke, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:23,
Reply)
look, everyone seems to be going against my point here and picking small hole in my phrasing.
euthanasia is horrible and unsuitable only on the grounds that its illegal.
i have no problem with it.
i simply think that everyones fucking panic over a tiny bit of regulation is extreme to say the least.
the govenrment have said nothing about censoring political opinion, only about sites that are unsuitable (i don't know about you guys but i take that to mean sites that actually break laws within that countries boundaries)
i can't be fucked to talk further on this cos i'm obviously not in with the popular opinion and as such i'll just get pulled apart on everything i say.
(
Just Flange, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:28,
Reply)
the act of euthanasia is illegal in australia
but information about it surely can't be?
and that's the real problem here.
there's a BIG difference between an illegal act and information about it, however unsuitable some people think that information may be.
(
The little pink animal is mostly harmless, except on, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:34,
Reply)
sadly
hang around 4chan /b board long enough.....
just one of the reasons I don't go there anymore
(
The little pink animal is mostly harmless, except on, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:39,
Reply)
there's nothing wrong with filters against child pornography
but about euthanasia?
seriously?
it's a controversial issue, sure, but should information about it really be banned like that?
I have a real problem with governments controlling information like that.
(
The little pink animal is mostly harmless, except on, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 13:31,
Reply)