5 ms·

To make it clear: these sites are not blocked, you can still acess them. They just don't turn up when you search 'sick forbidden sex with animals' on search eng

To make it clear: these sites are not blocked, you can still acess them. They just don't turn up when you search 'sick forbidden sex with animals' on search engines. How far does censorship go? Where does 'protecting our kids' start? Some of these sites contain stuff that is clearly illegal here in Germany. Is prohibiting something always 'censorship'? I'd say no, it is a matter of fine adjustment which has to be carefully established and controlled.

darklajid 12y ago
I agree with the sibling comment: The parents need to take care of their kids, not the state. Putting that aside: Why the hell would you block content that already is illegal anyway? The same discussion came up with Ursula's braindead child born blocklist. It serves no purpose. It is dumb. And .. entirely arbitrary on top (who maintains the list? How do you add or remove things from that list?) Defending this thing is hard, invoking "think of the children" is probably the only option here. But.. seriously?
ThomPete 12y ago
by whos criteria?
- patrickg 12y ago
  We can take the law as a starting point.
  - vdaniuk 12y ago
    Who watches the watchmen? Many laws are unjust, unfair and oppressive.
    - patrickg 12y ago
      Please quote some of the 'many' unjust, unfair and oppresive laws.
      - vdaniuk 12y ago
        You can't be serious...
        patrickg 12y ago
        Yes, I am serious. As a judge I hear a lot of people complaining about the laws (in Germany, that's the point). But when I ask them to give examples, they get always quiet.
      - lotsofmangos 12y ago
        La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.
  - ThomPete 12y ago
    Thats not an answer. People have different opinions about what should be the law.
    - patrickg 12y ago
      But we have a current set of valid laws in Germany. That can be a starting point.
      - ThomPete 12y ago
        You have laws that are valid by definition. You do not have laws everyone agrees with and so there is the problem.
bigethan 12y ago
You're missing the point a bit. Neocities isn't taking the position that the blocking is a bad thing. They are arguing that people should get to know what the government is blocking. Today it's "sick forbidden sex with animals" but tomorrow it could be "your rights as a German" and if there's no transparency, the government can easily control the information that their people see. Which is a really big thing to control without any oversight or input.
- patrickg 12y ago
  No, I don't think I am missing the point. My question was basically: is censorship always a bad idea? If yes, how can we enforce the law otherwise (forbidden pictures)? Or should we make our laws towards "showing everything is allowed"? Where does it start and where does it end?
  - bigethan 12y ago
    by "missing the point a bit" I meant "slightly off topic for the article". You had one of the initial replies to the article, and I was hoping to keep the discussion a bit more on the topic of the article, which is an interesting one. To respond to your question: I default to trusting people. So in the grey area, I'm towards whatever side lets people decide their lives for themselves. But as to specifically where it starts and ends, that's not a specific call I'm informed enough to make. And I'm sure it differs from culture to culture. What's acceptable for my neighborhood is probably wrong for others. To me, that's where things get impossible to decide on one line for everyone. So I'd trust people to define their own community mores.
    - patrickg 12y ago
      I considered my initial post on topic :) This is a very dificult and highly subjective topic. Free speech always ends where you start to hurt other people. So there is always 'censorship' in some way or another. The group of 'anti censorship' people (no censorship whatsoever) almost always neglect that point. I think the only question is: how far should censorship go? Should we block sites? Should we block search engines (like in this case)? What material should be blocked? How can we make sure that the list of items that are censored does not 'overflow'?
mikeash 12y ago
I don't see why we can't just call it "censorship" no matter what the reason. If it makes you uncomfortable to call it "censorship" when blocking Nazi propaganda or whatever, well, good. Discomfort is a sign that you're thinking.
- patrickg 12y ago
  I am fine with the term 'censorship', but we should discuss: where does it start, where does it end? What kind of censorship is allowed, and what is not allowed?
  - DenisM 12y ago
    That kind of discussion could benefit from some facts to discuss. For example, the list of sites being blocked. Unfortunately, the German government is trying to keep them secret, which hinders the discussion. Nicht wahr?
JoshTriplett 12y ago
Prohibiting or limiting access to information is always censorship. Censorship of third-party information by governments is universally wrong. If you want to protect your children from certain types of information via censorship, that's not necessarily wrong, but it's entirely your own responsibility. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with this censorship list if maintained by a private entity and voluntarily applied by individuals to their own Internet connections.
- cyorir 12y ago
  You believe that censorship by governments is universally wrong, but that view is not universal. German laws have been oriented to allow censorship since the allied occupation of West Germany. It is perfectly legal by German law as it is practiced where there is no contradiction with civil or European law. The German populace was generally supportive of this censorship in the post-war period to mend the ideological rifts that drove society apart in the early part of the cold war. While views are certainly changing in the "information age," if the German populace changes its views on censorship then it needs only to change its own laws.
  - rosser 12y ago
    There's legal, and there's moral. The two sets are not coterminous.
    - cyorir 12y ago
      True. We shape laws to approximate a vision of what should be moral. As views of morality change, the laws often fail to keep pace.
  - sgift 12y ago
    It is not as easy as it sounds. The law in question states (Article 5, German basic law): (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour. --- In theory, it is quite easy to fix the problem: Remove (2) and you are done. In reality, no politician would ever try to do that. "You are against keeping children save?", "You are against honour?" and so on. Still, it would be for the best to remove it ... the government uses it to push every shit they want in regards with censorship - after all, basically everything can be restated to be "for the protection of young persons".
peterkelly 12y ago
> Where does 'protecting our kids' start? It starts with parents, who's responsibility it is to supervise their children and educate them about how to use the Internet responsibly. If you're reliant on easily-circumvented blacklists to protect your kids, you're doing it wrong. Specifically, the responsibility (with regards to Internet content) does not rest with a government. > Is prohibiting something always 'censorship'? Yes (at least when the thing being prohibited is information). That's what censorship is. One can validly argue about whether or not a particular instance of censorship is right or wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still censorship.
austerity 12y ago
Every single law limiting access to information ends up being abused to create censorship in favor of somebody's selfish interest, political or otherwise. Privacy laws? Abused. Libel laws? Abused. Copyright? Abused all the god damn time. When it comes to knowledge, taboos and restrictions are an archaic pre-rational way of dealing with dangerous ideas and should be put to rest right about now. There's simply no place for this kind of stuff in the modern society.
nasmorn 12y ago
The ridiculous part is the secrecy. The US censors nipples on TV but at least that is not a secret and I will not be prosecuted for saying so
- pgeorgi 12y ago
  http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/Service/english.html http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/Service/english.html is not very secret. The list is also opt-in, so the US equivalent would be an option on your TV to have it blur nipples or drown out certain four letter words.

darklajid 12y ago

I agree with the sibling comment: The parents need to take care of their kids, not the state. Putting that aside: Why the hell would you block content that already is illegal anyway? The same discussion came up with Ursula's braindead child born blocklist. It serves no purpose. It is dumb. And .. entirely arbitrary on top (who maintains the list? How do you add or remove things from that list?) Defending this thing is hard, invoking "think of the children" is probably the only option here. But.. seriously?

ThomPete 12y ago

by whos criteria?

patrickg 12y ago
We can take the law as a starting point.
- vdaniuk 12y ago
  Who watches the watchmen? Many laws are unjust, unfair and oppressive.
  - patrickg 12y ago
    Please quote some of the 'many' unjust, unfair and oppresive laws.
    - vdaniuk 12y ago
      You can't be serious...
      - patrickg 12y ago
        Yes, I am serious. As a judge I hear a lot of people complaining about the laws (in Germany, that's the point). But when I ask them to give examples, they get always quiet.
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.
- ThomPete 12y ago
  Thats not an answer. People have different opinions about what should be the law.
  - patrickg 12y ago
    But we have a current set of valid laws in Germany. That can be a starting point.
    - ThomPete 12y ago
      You have laws that are valid by definition. You do not have laws everyone agrees with and so there is the problem.

bigethan 12y ago

You're missing the point a bit. Neocities isn't taking the position that the blocking is a bad thing. They are arguing that people should get to know what the government is blocking. Today it's "sick forbidden sex with animals" but tomorrow it could be "your rights as a German" and if there's no transparency, the government can easily control the information that their people see. Which is a really big thing to control without any oversight or input.

patrickg 12y ago
No, I don't think I am missing the point. My question was basically: is censorship always a bad idea? If yes, how can we enforce the law otherwise (forbidden pictures)? Or should we make our laws towards "showing everything is allowed"? Where does it start and where does it end?
- bigethan 12y ago
  by "missing the point a bit" I meant "slightly off topic for the article". You had one of the initial replies to the article, and I was hoping to keep the discussion a bit more on the topic of the article, which is an interesting one. To respond to your question: I default to trusting people. So in the grey area, I'm towards whatever side lets people decide their lives for themselves. But as to specifically where it starts and ends, that's not a specific call I'm informed enough to make. And I'm sure it differs from culture to culture. What's acceptable for my neighborhood is probably wrong for others. To me, that's where things get impossible to decide on one line for everyone. So I'd trust people to define their own community mores.
  - patrickg 12y ago
    I considered my initial post on topic :) This is a very dificult and highly subjective topic. Free speech always ends where you start to hurt other people. So there is always 'censorship' in some way or another. The group of 'anti censorship' people (no censorship whatsoever) almost always neglect that point. I think the only question is: how far should censorship go? Should we block sites? Should we block search engines (like in this case)? What material should be blocked? How can we make sure that the list of items that are censored does not 'overflow'?

mikeash 12y ago

I don't see why we can't just call it "censorship" no matter what the reason. If it makes you uncomfortable to call it "censorship" when blocking Nazi propaganda or whatever, well, good. Discomfort is a sign that you're thinking.

patrickg 12y ago
I am fine with the term 'censorship', but we should discuss: where does it start, where does it end? What kind of censorship is allowed, and what is not allowed?
- DenisM 12y ago
  That kind of discussion could benefit from some facts to discuss. For example, the list of sites being blocked. Unfortunately, the German government is trying to keep them secret, which hinders the discussion. Nicht wahr?

JoshTriplett 12y ago

Prohibiting or limiting access to information is always censorship. Censorship of third-party information by governments is universally wrong. If you want to protect your children from certain types of information via censorship, that's not necessarily wrong, but it's entirely your own responsibility. There would be absolutely nothing wrong with this censorship list if maintained by a private entity and voluntarily applied by individuals to their own Internet connections.

cyorir 12y ago
You believe that censorship by governments is universally wrong, but that view is not universal. German laws have been oriented to allow censorship since the allied occupation of West Germany. It is perfectly legal by German law as it is practiced where there is no contradiction with civil or European law. The German populace was generally supportive of this censorship in the post-war period to mend the ideological rifts that drove society apart in the early part of the cold war. While views are certainly changing in the "information age," if the German populace changes its views on censorship then it needs only to change its own laws.
- rosser 12y ago
  There's legal, and there's moral. The two sets are not coterminous.
  - cyorir 12y ago
    True. We shape laws to approximate a vision of what should be moral. As views of morality change, the laws often fail to keep pace.
- sgift 12y ago
  It is not as easy as it sounds. The law in question states (Article 5, German basic law): (1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures, and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship. (2) These rights shall find their limits in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to personal honour. --- In theory, it is quite easy to fix the problem: Remove (2) and you are done. In reality, no politician would ever try to do that. "You are against keeping children save?", "You are against honour?" and so on. Still, it would be for the best to remove it ... the government uses it to push every shit they want in regards with censorship - after all, basically everything can be restated to be "for the protection of young persons".

peterkelly 12y ago

> Where does 'protecting our kids' start? It starts with parents, who's responsibility it is to supervise their children and educate them about how to use the Internet responsibly. If you're reliant on easily-circumvented blacklists to protect your kids, you're doing it wrong. Specifically, the responsibility (with regards to Internet content) does not rest with a government. > Is prohibiting something always 'censorship'? Yes (at least when the thing being prohibited is information). That's what censorship is. One can validly argue about whether or not a particular instance of censorship is right or wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still censorship.

austerity 12y ago

Every single law limiting access to information ends up being abused to create censorship in favor of somebody's selfish interest, political or otherwise. Privacy laws? Abused. Libel laws? Abused. Copyright? Abused all the god damn time. When it comes to knowledge, taboos and restrictions are an archaic pre-rational way of dealing with dangerous ideas and should be put to rest right about now. There's simply no place for this kind of stuff in the modern society.

nasmorn 12y ago

The ridiculous part is the secrecy. The US censors nipples on TV but at least that is not a secret and I will not be prosecuted for saying so

pgeorgi 12y ago
http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/Service/english.html http://www.bundespruefstelle.de/bpjm/Service/english.html is not very secret. The list is also opt-in, so the US equivalent would be an option on your TV to have it blur nipples or drown out certain four letter words.