Opinon : Would you support censorship ...

[Phanuthier]

... of internet hate groups and message boards?

Such as anti-black, anti-arab, al-quada and so on?

Simple yes or no

[iggypop]

No. There's no need. Censor yourself, I can't say I have even been to any of these sort of sites.

[Rathji]

I assume you are refering to government censorship of these sites?

If that is the case, then I say no.

However there are many programs out there which enable you to control access to any site from your own personal computers or computers on your network. If this is the type of censorship you are refering to, then I say yes.

[LIP MAN]

No as I think it would create too much of a gray area as to what is allowed on the internet, and could see the government shutting down websites they deem unfit for no good reason. Although that's worst case scenario. I wish that people wouldn't have to resort to joining in hating minority groups and people in regards to their religious beliefs (as long as they aren't pushing it on me) but unfortunately they do.

[sadora]

No.

[GirlySports]

Nope. I can choose not to participate in those sites.

Next thing you know they will censor this site for being a hate group (Edmontonians)

[Caged Great]

Once you start down that road, where does it stop.

[Azure]

Never, ever.

Once you begin censoring websites, where do you stop?

[REDVAN]

I vote no on any sort of censorship.

Obviously if someone started a thread on this forum along those topics, yes, close it and delete it very fast!

But if there is a specific community, where does censorship start and end? It's a slippery slope once you start to restrict some people and not others.

[Devils'Advocate]

I can't say yes or no. Need more specifics. Is the web site plotting the killing of people? Burning down churches? In that case, yes.

There are a lot of people that claim that they want absolutely no censorship on the internet. None. Zero. Nada. In no way, shape or form. But when it comes to things like child pornography, they quickly back away from their stance. If you are committing a crime or conspiring to commit a crime, then it needs to be controlled. Beyond that, freedom is as freedom does.

[BlackEleven]

Are you asking because of Australia's recent internet censorship decision?
http://www.infoworld.com/news/feeds/...html?source=gs

I agree with everyone else. Bad idea. Even filtering out the most vile and hateful content you're going to catch something else in that net that doesn't deserve to be there.

[Phanuthier]

Now I realize nobody has claimed responsibility for them, but found this link interesting :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...703367_pf.html

A U.S. intelligence official, asked about the online attacks, declined to say whether U.S. spy agencies engage in them. American and British security forces each have joint commands overseeing online operations against extremists.

[LIP MAN]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I can't say yes or no. Need more specifics. Is the web site plotting the killing of people? Burning down churches? In that case, yes.

There are a lot of people that claim that they want absolutely no censorship on the internet. None. Zero. Nada. In no way, shape or form. But when it comes to things like child pornography, they quickly back away from their stance. If you are committing a crime or conspiring to commit a crime, then it needs to be controlled. Beyond that, freedom is as freedom does.

From my understanding of the question, it was a hate site. Obviously any crime or conspiracy to commit a crime sites should and would be taken down.

[Burninator]

No.

[Azure]

I demand that this thread be closed immediately.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by LIP MAN

From my understanding of the question, it was a hate site. Obviously any crime or conspiracy to commit a crime sites should and would be taken down.

A specific site which is engaging in or promoting illegal acts should taken down? How is this any different from censorship?

I am not saying they shouldn't be, but this thread has got me thinking and I think they are both the same thing. Am I mistaken?

[Dion]

Never. Once you start you create a slippery slope.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Rathji

A specific site which is engaging in or promoting illegal acts should taken down? How is this any different from censorship?

I am not saying they shouldn't be, but this thread has got me thinking and I think they are both the same thing. Am I mistaken?

I don't think you are at all mistaken.

How about this theoretical situation: I am going to start a web site stating that I want people to kill person X. I am going to post times and locations X may be alone and post pictures of where X goes, suggested scenerios of how to do it and get away with it, etc. I am then going to post the best ways to do it (drug allergies, illnesses that could be triggered like an asthma attack). I will then state that I will give $50,000 to anyone that kills X. I hope nobody censors my site. Because then there would be a slippery slope, and where would that end?

[Rathji]

Well I recall a huge number of child porn sites that were removed ( Maybe just blocked?) by the Canadian government a couple years back. That was a move I certainly don't object to.

So in the general sense, I am against censorship. However, there are specific examples that I might not be against using censorship as a method to stop the website from being accessed.

[Flames in 07]

No. slippery slope.