The off-topic parts of the reply go to chat@freenetproject.org and to Bob himself.
On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 08:55:01PM +0000, Bob wrote: > > We have state level internet censorship? > > Slight hyperbole perhaps, but the apparatus is there and it seems to be > happening. Right now known child porn sites are banned at the backbone/telco > level, which is fine, but this shows worrying signs of being expanded. My understanding is that BT said they were going to do this, and that it would be extremely expensive, so isn't likely to happen. And BT are not the only backbone provider in the UK. > Next on > the list is any criticism of a religion deemed to be "hate speech", and porn > deemed by some undefined party to be too "violent". The proposed incitement to > terrorism stuff is a bit open ended too. I'm more worried about the glorification offence. Either way, if they use the Terrorism Act 2000 definition of "terrorist act", it's pretty dangerous. I can send you the fax I sent to my MP if you like. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4195332.stm AFAICS that law does not impose any obligations on ISPs to block content, merely to cooperate with the police in their enquiries (e.g. trace IPs posting illegal content to usenet). > OMG, must censor teh internets to protect our children because we have no > parenting skills. That attitude is very sad, I agree. Young children shouldn't be allowed to access the internet on their own, it's a dangerous place, even *with* netnanny. The only real option for unattended access is whitelists controlled by the parents. > As for the insinuation that any porn harder than is allowed to > be sold in a UK sex shop must be censored, good luck censoring a third of the > internet. Bull. The internet has grown up. There's a lot of hard porn, but there's a LOT of other stuff (not just porn!). This is just how new media evolve; perverts are always early adopters, right after geeks and small visionary parts of academia. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3871867.stm > Scientologists rub their hands in glee as they gain a new weapon. Pointing out > Mohammed was by modern standards a paedo == offence? Claiming the 'lost books' > of the Bible that say Jesus had homosexual relations, served a hallucinogen at > the last supper etc. exist == offence? Etcetera. Scientology has plenty of weaponry already, and if it tries to suppress the OT-8 material with religious hatred laws, it'll end up in the dock itself under the same laws. But they've been dealt severe blows from all over the place - the fishman testimony and the OT leaks being the obvious things. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4247638.stm > "Powers to tackle bookshops selling extremist material". So Mein Kampf is > going > to be a thoughtcrime here too? Maybe we could have public bonfires of the > offending books while the security forces march around them and shout slogans, > y'know, to drive the point home. LOL. > > Bob -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ chat mailing list chat@freenetproject.org Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
