quote:

---

Originally posted by Saddletank
I am beginning to truly beleive that you do not understand the difference in meaning between the words "spying" and "censoring".

---

__________________
Watch everything but only take the good things from it

Ask, think and learn. Because the more we know the more we grow.

Watching the wrong to happen is the same as commiting the wrong.

If it looks like things are forcing you to be creative, Then be creative.

its a uniquely Miyazaki film, one only he could make and its uniqueness places it beyond being easily critiqued.[About Porco Rosso]
taken from a quote of Saddletank and Orphic Okapi

Post last edited by saviour2012 on 09.20.2013, 02:56 PM.

Spying is not manipulation. Spying is watching. Spying is surveillance.

After a cursory glance at the UK article it appears that any sites that have been taken down have been taken down because they broke the law. Further, the OpenNet Initiative found no evidence of censoring in political, social, security or Internet tools areas.

__________________

quote:

---

Originally posted by saviour2012

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saddletank
I am beginning to truly beleive that you do not understand the difference in meaning between the words "spying" and "censoring".

---

I think you are not considering manipulation as a act of censorship.

---

Please don't move the goalposts. The word "manipulation" can mean many things and it opens up a whole new discussion. Lets remain focussed on what you claimed which was that governments in the west censor the internet.

quote:

---

Originally posted by saviour2012
and do you consider the sites that has been taken down under the following rules are censorship or not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_c...e_United_States

---

The only event listed on this entire page subject to government action appears to the Trading With The Enemy incident and that report lacks all citation so is unverifiable. I would expect this case is still undergoing a lawsuit given how crazy it is.

All the other listed government attempts to censor were either rescinded, failed outright after legal battles or are not actually censorship but fall under activities designed to protect minors from unsuitable material (which is just common sense).

Remember censorship prevents anyone from accessing material, not just children.

quote:

---

Originally posted by saviour2012 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_c..._United_Kingdom

---

From that paage:

"in 2010 the OpenNet Initiative found no evidence of technical filtering in the political, social, conflict/security, or Internet tools areas. However, the U.K. openly blocks child pornography Web sites."

So, no, there's no state censorship there at all. Blocking criminal/illegal activity websites isn't censorship. It falls within the law.

Ah. What Kaz said.

__________________
Isakaya High School Roleplaying Info

"An old man like me stands no chance fighting against a high school girl in her underwear" - Oshino Meme, Nekomonogatari (Kuro)

Post last edited by Saddletank on 09.20.2013, 09:55 PM.

I'm pretty sure the act of blocking anything is censorship, regardless of legality. Japan laws require genitals in porn to be mosaic'ed. Likewise, family-friendly shows on TV are required by law to beep out vulgarities.

You don't find them arguing that "it's not censorship," do you? Juz sayin'.

__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.

Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.

---

I agree with you roar

@saddle
my definition what i gave [link] earlier clearly says manipulation as a act of censorship.

And if you do not find the sites those were taken down by those laws to be an act of censorship then there is nothing i have more to say because more or less sites were taken down by using those laws. and those sites are down so i cant bring anyone up and show you. try to remember about the wikileaks incident what fuss it made and what govt tried to do. they blocked it right? but people accessed it from mirrors. that is what govt can not control. even Chinese people can actually access any site by using these means.That is going to change if NSA plan works. that is my key point.

And i think saddle you are missing my point here, i do not disagree with you that there is no clear govt policy to ban sites like china in west. But that does not mean you have a free internet or uncensored internet. there are many sites[ it does not matter if its political or non-political] that you cant access directly. the sites that can stir up major problem like wikileaks has been tried very hard to stop or take down but it did not work. thats why new things[prism] are coming up. And you have to see that whistle blowers are not rewarded on the contrary they are tortured what kind of freedom is that. why? because they leaked govt's dirty secrets and now govt understands the power of internet so wants to control it totally.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Western_intern...he_beginning%3F

if you cant access then you are censored[i think you are not]

a slide show

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/08/16/..._Great_Firewall

you can read these articles if you have time

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=inte...C5&as_vis=1

and please go to this one kaz and saddle both
Social



tomorrow i have a class test so i cant research anything more right now.
till next time

__________________
Watch everything but only take the good things from it

Ask, think and learn. Because the more we know the more we grow.

Watching the wrong to happen is the same as commiting the wrong.

If it looks like things are forcing you to be creative, Then be creative.

its a uniquely Miyazaki film, one only he could make and its uniqueness places it beyond being easily critiqued.[About Porco Rosso]
taken from a quote of Saddletank and Orphic Okapi

Post last edited by saviour2012 on 09.21.2013, 09:54 AM.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roarkiller
I'm pretty sure the act of blocking anything is censorship, regardless of legality.

---

__________________
Isakaya High School Roleplaying Info

"An old man like me stands no chance fighting against a high school girl in her underwear" - Oshino Meme, Nekomonogatari (Kuro)

Post last edited by Saddletank on 09.21.2013, 01:18 PM.

Furthermore, much of what Wikileaks has is considered state secrets/confidential information by the USA, which are illegal to distribute in the USA. Therefore, a move to block Wikileaks would probably not be illegal. That said, I don't think Wikileaks was ever actually blocked; I could always access it without a mirror or proxy whenever I tried. Paypal froze their account at some point so they were unable to accept donations, and as a result of this, I think their servers crashed for some time. That's not the same issue. The US government has told their employees that they can't access Wikileaks, but that's perfectly fair, since they're employees.

You could argue about whether or not states should be allowed to have secrets, or be able to decide what is and is not confidential. But while I'm always in favour of a more transparent government, I know that at least some things are justifiably secret, especially relating to military operations or technology.

__________________

Post last edited by Mush on 09.21.2013, 04:52 PM.

Amen, Mush, Amen...

__________________

@saddle

A)this is my link about censorship and this is what i mean by the word

http://gilc.org/speech/osistudy/censorship/

basic ideas
1.the control of the information and ideas circulated within a society
2. the examination of books, plays, films, television and radio programs, news reports, and other forms of communication
3. altering or suppressing ideas found to be objectionable or offensive


i linked this at the first page before all of this discussions

so i am not moving away from the discussion.


B)The rules i am referring is the ones written in the wiki pages i supplied you.

C)

quote:

---

There have been numerous attempts by the US Govt to censor their internet, I agree, but not a single one has succeeded as far as I have been able to determine. All have been overturned after legal battles because of the First Amendment.


Yes, this is my point. Western govts may be TRYING to censor the internet but cannot due to freedom of speech laws.


there's attempts to censor but they are being defeated in law

---

__________________
Watch everything but only take the good things from it

Ask, think and learn. Because the more we know the more we grow.

Watching the wrong to happen is the same as commiting the wrong.

If it looks like things are forcing you to be creative, Then be creative.

its a uniquely Miyazaki film, one only he could make and its uniqueness places it beyond being easily critiqued.[About Porco Rosso]
taken from a quote of Saddletank and Orphic Okapi

Post last edited by saviour2012 on 09.22.2013, 11:27 AM.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saddletank

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roarkiller
I'm pretty sure the act of blocking anything is censorship, regardless of legality.

---

Don't be silly! Child abuse and peodophilia are illegal in most countries. Blocking or shutting down web sites that support/condone it is not censorship, its plain simple lawful activity. Are you suggesting the police should not arrest the peodophiles who run these sites?

---

My argument, however, is not about the legality of such activities. My argument is that, just because it is illegal, doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the general definition of censorship. Consider that the reason why there is any censorship in the first place in most situations is precisely because of laws that prohibit it.

I'd like to put forward a case with a similar context: Crime and punishment. Murder and petty theft are two very different crimes both in terms of social damage and minimum/maximum punishment, but it doesn't change the fact that both fall into the category of "crime" and both need to be stamped out. One being much less severe than the other doesn't mean it isn't categorized as crime.

Similarly, while child pornography is a crime in most countries, viewing them on the internet is not simply because you cannot prove it as a case of "possession or distribution" since the images are on the internet, not in your computer. The legal argument is very much the same as the music industry, where listening to songs on youtube or wherever else is not the same as actually downloading them into your computer.

In a similar case, torrent list websites cannot be held accountable because they are a list of links, not actual content, and distribution is done by a separate program, not through the website. This is different from the MegaUpload case where the files are physically in the server.

Hence, to say that the blocking of such sites is due to the law prohibiting them and not censorship is shaky at best. The law prohibits possession and distribution of such material, and while the people who owns the server can indeed be charged, the website itself may or may not fall under the same charge.

Therefore, even the argument that "it is against the law, therefore not censorship" is invalid because the website may not be breaking any laws in the first place.

Going back to the initial argument, assuming that the websites are indeed against the law, that doesn't exempt the act of blocking the websites to be outside of the definition of 'censorship'. The extent of blocking a child porn site and a celebrity nip-slip website may be different, but both are still considered as censorship, regardless of reason.

To be clear, the exact definition of the word 'censor' means to suppress a speech or writing (commonly umbrella'd as 'media') [Link]. It places no references to reason nor legality, so they shouldn't even be part of the argument in the first place. Especially when what is considered legal is defined by the whims of society (or politicians, depending on which side of the fence you are on).

Also, following your logic, if the blocking of only legal websites is considered censorship, then I have to argue against the legality of such actions in the first place (see first paragraph).

In closing, saddle, I argue that it is you who is moving the goalpost by attempting to redefine the term 'censorship'.

-----

Following the end of my argument, I'd like to highlight a very interesting fact: homosexuality was, until several years ago, considered a mental illness, even though marriages involving under-18 were not uncommon. Considering the situation now, I'd say that society is very fickle indeed in defining what is okay and what is not. And there are so many more examples like rascism, marriage amongst cousins, religious tolerance, etc etc.

And if all this doesn't convince you, well... read the quote in my sig

__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.

Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Roarkiller My argument is that, just because it is illegal, doesn't mean it doesn't fall under the general definition of censorship.

---

__________________
Isakaya High School Roleplaying Info

"An old man like me stands no chance fighting against a high school girl in her underwear" - Oshino Meme, Nekomonogatari (Kuro)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saddletank
There is no internet censorship in the west

---

__________________
Watch everything but only take the good things from it

Ask, think and learn. Because the more we know the more we grow.

Watching the wrong to happen is the same as commiting the wrong.

If it looks like things are forcing you to be creative, Then be creative.

its a uniquely Miyazaki film, one only he could make and its uniqueness places it beyond being easily critiqued.[About Porco Rosso]
taken from a quote of Saddletank and Orphic Okapi

Post last edited by saviour2012 on 09.22.2013, 11:44 PM.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saddletank
I see what you are saying but I disagree with you.

---

__________________
I am me.
I am who I am.
I am Roarkiller.
No one else is me.

Roarkiller.net
Isakaya High RPG Site

quote:

---

Originally posted by fenkashi
Screw your opinions, they are not relevant ^^.

---

For record purpose

quote:

---

I read an interview this last week with someone who gets his news from a narrow band of information providers. He reads The Wall Street Journal, a really good newspaper that tilts right on its editorial page and sometimes in its news coverage. He also reads The Washington Times, a more reflexively conservative publication, and listens to “the talk guys” on the radio during his commute to work. We know which ones, because liberals don’t do well on the radio. Even though he lives in Washington and works in government, he dumped his subscription to The Washington Post. He explained: “It was the treatment of almost any conservative issue. It was slanted and often nasty. And, you know, why should I get upset every morning?” He added that The Post was “shrilly, shrilly liberal.” Just another guy in Washington who can’t stand hearing anything that doesn’t comport with his worldview? Well, this one happens to work on the United States Supreme Court. As Justice Antonin Scalia might say, “Boom!” His interview with Jennifer Senior in New York magazine suggests that the tendency to limit one’s sources of information to avoid dissonance is not the province of a bunch of narrow-minded, politically obsessed characters who send mass e-mails from their mother’s basement. Political analysts trying to explain the current standoff in Washington are quick to point to redistricting as helping to foster ideological extremism in Congress. Representatives have been skillfully gerrymandered into safe districts of like minds where they can do as they please, listening only to reflections of their own thinking without fear of political consequence. But given that politics in its current form is threatening to produce a crisis that threatens to create financial mayhem on a global scale — while striking one more blow against claims of American “greatness” — perhaps something more complicated than sketching out voting districts is at play. The polarized political map is now accompanied by a media ecosystem that is equally gerrymandered into districts of self-reinforcing discourse. Justice Scalia and millions of news consumers select and assemble a worldview from sources that may please them, but rarely challenge them. As I flipped through cable channels over the last week, the government shutdown was viewed through remarkably different prisms. What was a “needless and destructive shutdown” on MSNBC became a low-impact and therapeutic “slim-down” over at Fox News. But cable blowhardism would not be such a good business if there hadn’t been a kind of personal redistricting of news coverage by the citizenry. Data from Pew Research Center for the People and the Press on trends in news consumption released last year suggests people are assembling along separate media streams where they find mostly what they want to hear, and little else. Fully 78 percent of Sean Hannity’s audience on Fox News identified as conservative, with most of the rest of the audience identifying as moderate and just 5 present as liberal. Over on MSNBC, conservatives make up just 7 percent of Rachel Maddow’s audience. It isn’t just politicians that are feeding their bases, it is the media outlets, as well. The village common — you know, that place where we all meet to discuss our problems, relying on the same set of facts — has shrunk to the size of a postage stamp, surrounded by the huge gated communities of like minds who never venture into the great beyond. But if you look past cable, talk radio and traditional media, there is another layer of self-reinforcing messages that may be having an impact. As Eli Pariser described in “The Filter Bubble,” search companies rely on algorithms to predict what users want to see based on past clicks, meaning that users are moved farther away from information streams that don’t fit their ideological bent. To put it another way, you and I might find very different results when we enter the word “shutdown” on Google. The skillful custodians of search can produce what Mr. Pariser describes as “personal ecosystems of information.” To take that one step further, think of your Facebook feed or your Twitter account, if you have either. When you pick people to follow, do you select from all over the map, or mostly from among those whose views on culture and politics tend to align with your own? Thought so. Unless you make a conscious effort to diversify your feeds, what you see in your social media stream is often a reflection, even amplification, of what you already believe. It’s a choir that preaches to itself. In the spirit of real discussion, I decided to leave my lane, if that’s what it is, and talk to John Podhoretz, a twice-a-week columnist for The New York Post and the editor of Commentary magazine. He’s a conservative, but not a strict ideologue, as evidenced by the recent scolding he issued in The Post to “my fellow conservatives who are acting as the enablers for irresponsible G.O.P. politicians.” “Right now, people have more choices than they have ever had,” he told me. “Hannity and Maddow are right next to each other on the cable dial. But what makes it different is how unwelcoming everyone is to everyone else. People just don’t cross over in their habits, or if they do, they are made to feel very uncomfortable.” “What’s different is the intensity level, the level of vituperation,” he said, adding that he had been on the receiving end of some of that by suggesting that the Tea Party was goading fellow Republicans into a suicide mission. “You can dial up the intensity level by following 200 more people who think like you on Twitter or by turning on MSNBC or Fox News.” More often than not, when we tune in to cable or fire up the Web, we are staring into the mirror, not looking out a window. If we did look out a window, we’d see government officials talking past and around one another as they all fall down a flight of stairs, perhaps a perfect reflection of the people they represent.

---

__________________
Watch everything but only take the good things from it

Ask, think and learn. Because the more we know the more we grow.

Watching the wrong to happen is the same as commiting the wrong.

If it looks like things are forcing you to be creative, Then be creative.

its a uniquely Miyazaki film, one only he could make and its uniqueness places it beyond being easily critiqued.[About Porco Rosso]
taken from a quote of Saddletank and Orphic Okapi

For historical purpose

quote:

---

Reform Government Surveillance Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn Global Government Surveillance Reform The undersigned companies believe that it is time for the world’s governments to address the practices and laws regulating government surveillance of individuals and access to their information. While the undersigned companies understand that governments need to take action to protect their citizens’ safety and security, we strongly believe that current laws and practices need to be reformed. Consistent with established global norms of free expression and privacy and with the goals of ensuring that government law enforcement and intelligence efforts are rule-bound, narrowly tailored, transparent, and subject to oversight, we hereby call on governments to endorse the following principles and enact reforms that would put these principles into action. Aol logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Microsoft logo Twitter logo Yahoo! logo The Principles 1 Limiting Governments’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information Governments should codify sensible limitations on their ability to compel service providers to disclose user data that balance their need for the data in limited circumstances, users’ reasonable privacy interests, and the impact on trust in the Internet. In addition, governments should limit surveillance to specific, known users for lawful purposes, and should not undertake bulk data collection of Internet communications. 2 Oversight and Accountability Intelligence agencies seeking to collect or compel the production of information should do so under a clear legal framework in which executive powers are subject to strong checks and balances. Reviewing courts should be independent and include an adversarial process, and governments should allow important rulings of law to be made public in a timely manner so that the courts are accountable to an informed citizenry. 3 Transparency About Government Demands Transparency is essential to a debate over governments’ surveillance powers and the scope of programs that are administered under those powers. Governments should allow companies to publish the number and nature of government demands for user information. In addition, governments should also promptly disclose this data publicly. 4 Respecting the Free Flow of Information The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a robust 21st century global economy. Governments should permit the transfer of data and should not inhibit access by companies or individuals to lawfully available information that is stored outside of the country. Governments should not require service providers to locate infrastructure within a country’s borders or operate locally. 5 Avoiding Conflicts Among Governments In order to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across jurisdictions, such as improved mutual legal assistance treaty — or “MLAT” — processes. Where the laws of one jurisdiction conflict with the laws of another, it is incumbent upon governments to work together to resolve the conflict. Voices For Reform “AOL is committed to preserving the privacy of our customers’ information, while respecting the right of governments to request information on specific users for lawful purposes. AOL is proud to unite with other leading Internet companies to advocate on behalf of our consumers.” —Tim Armstrong, Chairman and CEO, AOL “Reports about government surveillance have shown there is a real need for greater disclosure and new limits on how governments collect information. The US government should take this opportunity to lead this reform effort and make things right.” —Mark Zuckerberg, CEO, Facebook “The security of users’ data is critical, which is why we’ve invested so much in encryption and fight for transparency around government requests for information. This is undermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data, in secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the world. It’s time for reform and we urge the US government to lead the way.” —Larry Page, CEO, Google “These principles embody LinkedIn’s fundamental commitment to transparency and ensuring appropriate government practices that are respectful of our members’ expectations.” —Erika Rottenberg, General Counsel, LinkedIn “People won’t use technology they don’t trust. Governments have put this trust at risk, and governments need to help restore it.” —Brad Smith, General Counsel and Executive Vice President, Legal and Corporate Affairs, Microsoft “Twitter is committed to defending and protecting the voice of our users. Unchecked, undisclosed government surveillance inhibits the free flow of information and restricts their voice. The principles we advance today would reform the current system to appropriately balance the needs of security and privacy while safeguarding the essential human right of free expression.” —Dick Costolo, CEO, Twitter “Protecting the privacy of our users is incredibly important to Yahoo. Recent revelations about government surveillance activities have shaken the trust of our users, and it is time for the United States government to act to restore the confidence of citizens around the world. Today we join our colleagues in the tech industry calling on the United States Congress to change surveillance laws in order to ensure transparency and accountability for government actions.” —Marissa Mayer, CEO, Yahoo An open letter to Washington Dear Mr. President and Members of Congress, We understand that governments have a duty to protect their citizens. But this summer’s revelations highlighted the urgent need to reform government surveillance practices worldwide. The balance in many countries has tipped too far in favor of the state and away from the rights of the individual — rights that are enshrined in our Constitution. This undermines the freedoms we all cherish. It’s time for a change. For our part, we are focused on keeping users’ data secure — deploying the latest encryption technology to prevent unauthorized surveillance on our networks and by pushing back on government requests to ensure that they are legal and reasonable in scope. We urge the US to take the lead and make reforms that ensure that government surveillance efforts are clearly restricted by law, proportionate to the risks, transparent and subject to independent oversight. To see the full set of principles we support, visit ReformGovernmentSurveillance.com Sincerely, AOL, Apple, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo Aol logo Apple logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Microsoft logo Twitter logo Yahoo! logo © 2013. All trademarks are the property of their respective owners.

---

__________________
Watch everything but only take the good things from it

Ask, think and learn. Because the more we know the more we grow.

Watching the wrong to happen is the same as commiting the wrong.

If it looks like things are forcing you to be creative, Then be creative.

its a uniquely Miyazaki film, one only he could make and its uniqueness places it beyond being easily critiqued.[About Porco Rosso]
taken from a quote of Saddletank and Orphic Okapi