In a comment here to my post about the EU commission working to establish EU-wide censorship, Glynsky raises the same old, smoke screen, pseudo arguments:
- protecting children
- extremists and hate speech
This gets me into somewhat of a rage.
First, governments cannot protect your children. If you have kids, that's your job.
And if you believe censorship protects them, dream on, it does not.
Educating your children protects them.
Or did you as a kid ever have problems getting alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, pornography, what ever you wanted? Censoring makes stuff more interesting. Or did alcohol prohibition work in the USA?
Face the facts: blocking content on-line can be circumvented and kids are the first to know how. Just ask them to show you. Or read my earlier post here.
Also, tests in Germany and elsewhere showed, child pornography can be deleted compliant with existing laws within 48 hours.
Nobody wants to host this content and if pointed out, the web hosts inspect the page, contact the owner, deleted it and cancel the contracts. Then real child pornography is deleted, instead of blocked just for the ignorant.
Free speech is absolute. Either everyone can speak freely or it does not exist at all.
Do you get angry, when Islamic extremists publish hate speech? When they speak out against Salman Rushdie or the Danish caricaturists, who drew Allah cartoons? Both sides are protected by free speech, the caricaturist as well as his opponents. You cannot protect the one and prosecute the other for their expressions.
Oh, but Islamic extremists issued a fatwa, calling Muslims to kill the two. And what did US politicians do with Julian Assange? The same thing. Are they in jail? No. Are they being prosecuted? Not even that, although asking for someone's assassination is a criminal offense in the USA. But that's a different rant.
Now, let's cut the crap and get to the real reasons for censorship initiatives:
- copyright lobbyists
- government control over what you read
For years copyright lobbyists are fighting file-sharing, the exchange of media files among users on-line. They are trying to prevent the same thing, you did in your youth, when exchanging tapes or records. With absurd claims, in the most recent law suit the lobbyists asked for US$ 75 Trillion in damages. Just for perspective, 75 Trillion is more then the global GDP and more then the whole music industry had in revenues since existence.
It is also proven, that people who use file-sharing, buy more media records, then those who do not. The industry is terrorizing its customers.
Second, as proven by WikiLeaks, the Australian and Swedish Government black-lists contain more dissident websites then anything else.
After years of embedding journalists, exclusive press conferences for the politically correct, gag orders and secret meetings, finally most governments have a grip on traditional main stream media. You have the UK government controlling media, a German Minister had the critical editor in chief of a TV station fired, Italy has no independent media left, the NY Times admits to being censored. Media is under control, globally.
Now the politicians see the Internet as a threat to their control over what you and I can read and see and eventually will think.
That's why politicians want Internet censorship.
To protect their power, not your kids.
Slowly calming down,