2 ms·
You "half understand" liveleak and "you get" 4chan and 8 chan but should that be the basis for law and what thought is acceptable in a free society? Do we real
by anm89 8y ago
You "half understand" liveleak and "you get" 4chan and 8 chan but should that be the basis for law and what thought is acceptable in a free society?
Do we really want some political committee sitting around and arguing the merits of these people's writing? What about weird kink websites? What about radical political blogs that advocate for policy you find dangerous? You may find some of these things abhorrent but there are almost certainly people who would find certain things you believe abhorrent.
Any time you get into individual selection of what is acceptable thought and what isn't you are crossing a very dangerous line. Even if the initial things that are deemed unacceptable seem reasonable.
Edit: Telco monopolies relating to infrastructure are essentially state actors. There is a big difference here between a Telco refusing to route traffic and a bookstore deciding what content to carry.
- fixermark 8y agoWe are talking about Australia. They already essentially have a political committee that decides whether any given videogame is acceptable for import.
- kadendogthing 8y ago>Do we really want some political committee sitting around and arguing the merits of these people's writing? Are white supremacist and Nazis ideas still up for debate? Because that's essentially what you're arguing. Since that is what is being filtered. >Any time you get into individual selection of what is acceptable thought and what isn't you are crossing a very dangerous line. This is essentially using the term "free speech" as a thought terminating cliche. We've always filtered and editorialized information. It wasn't until recently we became a bit lax on the subject. And we can see the effects of our choices.