4 ms·

> but also block access to information about topics like abortion, sex education, LGBT and many others oh yeah right, the government actually want to block the

• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  oh yeah right, the government actually want to block these topics!! Of course they don't. Paleoconservative and other strict ideologies like the one that espouses the benefits of country-wide Internet censorship like this typically don't hold favorable positions to the aforementioned topics. Having a problem doesn't mean one necessarily wants a proper solution for it. Rather, as history has shown us many times, governments frequently take the easy way out either by denying it and skewing information, covering it up or implementing a faulty solution so as to appear that they're trying, when in fact it often worsens the situation (case in point: abstinence-only sex education).
• weland 13y ago
  > oh yeah right, the government actually want to block these topics!! Of course they don't. Britain has one of the worst teenage pregnancy rates in Europe and successive govs have spent a huge amount of time and money trying to correct. Yes, but depending on the side of the political fence they're on, they have done so in vastly different manners. Hardline conservatives would see the solution to that in measures like banning abortion, minimizing social assistance and various other things which, in their view, strengthen the traditional family and scare or marginalize those members of the society that don't adhere to it. This is, of course, the more extreme case; most conservative MPs aren't that hardline, but restricting access to those topics has a remarkable quenching effect on the social unrest of an increasingly cosmopolite Britain. Remember that it's not just websites about how to have anal sex with men that fall under the "LGBT" tag -- it's also websites, Twitter and Facebook pages of LGBT communities or activists. The last five years or so have shown that the Internet is a most effective rallying medium; the response times against abusive legislation has dramatically decreased as of lately. It's also worth noting that the definitions are broad enough that they can be excuses for pretty much anything. A reporter has gained possession of documents that attest the corruption of someone big? Cool -- find an article about abortion or pornography and poof! their website is conveniently blocked. Before calling me paranoid, do remember that checks and balances are a part of every democracy. The Habeas Corpus Act is a fair example of that. It requires that the courts examine the legality of a prisoner's detention, in case abusive detention occurs, either as a mistake or as a political or economical mechanism (which it actually was, several times, before the law was adopted, and the precedents indirectly contributed to its adoption). What exactly is there to guard against abusive filtering?
• weland 13y ago
  > oh yeah right, the government actually want to block these topics!! Of course they don't. Britain has one of the worst teenage pregnancy rates in Europe and successive govs have spent a huge amount of time and money trying to correct. Yes, but depending on the side of the political fence they're on, they have done so in vastly different manners. Hardline conservatives would see the solution to that in measures like banning abortion, minimizing social assistance and various other things which, in their view, strengthen the traditional family and scare or marginalize those members of the society that don't adhere to it. This is, of course, the more extreme case; most conservative MPs aren't that hardline, but restricting access to those topics has a remarkable quenching effect on the social unrest of an increasingly cosmopolite Britain. Remember that it's not just websites about how to have anal sex with men that fall under the "LGBT" tag -- it's also websites, Twitter and Facebook pages of LGBT communities or activists. The last five years or so have shown that the Internet is a most effective rallying medium; the response times against abusive legislation has dramatically decreased as of lately. It's also worth noting that the definitions are broad enough that they can be excuses for pretty much anything. A reporter has gained possession of documents that attest the corruption of someone big? Cool -- find an article about abortion or pornography and poof! their website is conveniently blocked. Before calling me paranoid, do remember that checks and balances are a part of every democracy. The Habeas Corpus Act is a fair example of that. It requires that the courts examine the legality of a prisoner's detention, in case abusive detention occurs, either as a mistake or as a political or economical mechanism (which it actually was, several times, before the law was adopted, and the precedents indirectly contributed to its adoption). What exactly is there to guard against abusive filtering?