>I don't see the vast amount of "good things" being censored everywhere as a result of the slippery slope of censorship. I would like to ask that you take a mo

>I don't see the vast amount of "good things" being censored everywhere as a result of the slippery slope of censorship. I would like to ask that you take a moment to reflect on this statement ... ... ... Okay now moving on. Who's to say they need to censor "good things"? They only need to censor things that you don't agree with censoring. I won't pretend to know your political standings but I can guarantee you that your opinion and the governments opinion on what should be censored will eventually reach a disagreement. People tend to give governments powers during a time of need or when they are frightened often in exchange for "increased safety". A perceived increase of safety that may - or may not - result in more safety but with 100% certainty results in giving up certain rights or freedoms. For the easiest example of exchanging things for a perceived increase in safety. What do you think of the TSA? Is the intrusiveness and racism in the 'random selections' actually resulting in increased safety and security? Or is it mostly security theater? It tramples over peoples' privacy and sometimes violates their rights for a perceived increase of safety but the failure rate is so high that it is meaningless. The government isn't going to get rid of that power (the TSA) so easily. After all, we gave it to them and they'll gladly keep up the security theater in exchange. The U.S signed away large portions of our privacy and removed many checks & balances placed on the government after the 9/11 attacks. The USA-PATRIOT Act was forced through in a time of need where people were frightened in exchange for safety and security. By the time you realize you've given the government too much power it's far too late to take any of it back. History is full of examples and history may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.