3 ms·

If this becomes reality it will seriously set back the value of the internet, its freedom of speech and privacy. It doesnt matter that it is "just" one country.

by madmaze 15y ago

If this becomes reality it will seriously set back the value of the internet, its freedom of speech and privacy. It doesnt matter that it is "just" one country. Its a western country and this mindset of censorship and control by such a government worries me. Alot.

nextparadigms 15y ago
This would set a very bad precedent indeed, as other countries will later point to France as an example of how it should be done. Sarkozy wanted to get all the G8 countries on the same page, so they don't look out of place with their new censorship laws. That way if they all enforce the same kind of laws in the same time, they think people would just take it for granted that that's how it should be done, and that "if so many countries are doing it, then it probably makes sense". People need to speak out against such measures and be very vocal about it. Fortunately, there are elections next spring in France, so I hope the French people will vote Sarkozy down over this, and put someone in his place that disagrees with such censorship. Americans also have an election next year, and hopefully they'll do the same (Ron Paul?).
- dmitri1981 15y ago
  > Fortunately, there are elections next spring I would say you are mistaken in the belief that these policies exist because of certain leaders. In my opinion, they exist because the electorate is misguided in believing that this kind of 'censorship' is a good idea. Therefore, I would suggest that voting out the incumbent will not necessarily make the problem go away. I believe that the best way to deal with this is by spreading the counter message to show just how foolish and misguided the policies are. In addition, you should write to your government representative and let them know how you feel, ideally providing some good justifications for your argument.
  - roc 15y ago
    > "In my opinion, they exist because the electorate is misguided in believing that this kind of 'censorship' is a good idea." Or, a bit more cynically, they're paid to believe this kind of 'censorship' is a good idea.
    - dmitri1981 15y ago
      A slight misunderstanding perhaps. By electorate I mean the general public who elect the politicians. As far as I know they don't get paid to have opinions, unlike some politicians in a few cases.
      - roc 15y ago
        Huh. Well it wasn't a misunderstanding. I just completely missed what you'd written and read my own bias right into your comment.
  - error 15y ago
    Could not agree more... spreading the counter message is best way to deal with it.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- ovi256 15y ago
  I can see Sarkozy not being re-elected, but Ron Paul ? That guy is nuts just as well as the other right wing candidates. Furthermore, I am pretty sure you want him only because you don't know him too well. Only his more palatable views have been touted around the web.

by madmaze 15y ago

nextparadigms 15y ago

This would set a very bad precedent indeed, as other countries will later point to France as an example of how it should be done. Sarkozy wanted to get all the G8 countries on the same page, so they don't look out of place with their new censorship laws. That way if they all enforce the same kind of laws in the same time, they think people would just take it for granted that that's how it should be done, and that "if so many countries are doing it, then it probably makes sense". People need to speak out against such measures and be very vocal about it. Fortunately, there are elections next spring in France, so I hope the French people will vote Sarkozy down over this, and put someone in his place that disagrees with such censorship. Americans also have an election next year, and hopefully they'll do the same (Ron Paul?).

dmitri1981 15y ago
> Fortunately, there are elections next spring I would say you are mistaken in the belief that these policies exist because of certain leaders. In my opinion, they exist because the electorate is misguided in believing that this kind of 'censorship' is a good idea. Therefore, I would suggest that voting out the incumbent will not necessarily make the problem go away. I believe that the best way to deal with this is by spreading the counter message to show just how foolish and misguided the policies are. In addition, you should write to your government representative and let them know how you feel, ideally providing some good justifications for your argument.
- roc 15y ago
  > "In my opinion, they exist because the electorate is misguided in believing that this kind of 'censorship' is a good idea." Or, a bit more cynically, they're paid to believe this kind of 'censorship' is a good idea.
  - dmitri1981 15y ago
    A slight misunderstanding perhaps. By electorate I mean the general public who elect the politicians. As far as I know they don't get paid to have opinions, unlike some politicians in a few cases.
    - roc 15y ago
      Huh. Well it wasn't a misunderstanding. I just completely missed what you'd written and read my own bias right into your comment.
- error 15y ago
  Could not agree more... spreading the counter message is best way to deal with it.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
ovi256 15y ago
I can see Sarkozy not being re-elected, but Ron Paul ? That guy is nuts just as well as the other right wing candidates. Furthermore, I am pretty sure you want him only because you don't know him too well. Only his more palatable views have been touted around the web.