<OT> Freedom of speech vs: The Internet's Dark Side / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

<OT> Freedom of speech vs: The Internet's Dark Side

1 2 3 4 next last

Move Thread

LAN_403

Conundrum

Sun Oct 03 2010, 04:23PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4062

Hi all.
I read with dismay about the recent tragic suicides in the UK, in all likelihood the direct result of some very sick and twisted individuals on certain "pro-suicide" forums who provide information about the manufacture of deadly gases and other methods knowing exactly how it will be used.
In some cases actually "egging on" depressed people to end their lives when what they need is counselling and suchlike.

EDIT:- removed unnecessary pro-censorship ranting..

comments?

regards, -Andre

edit:-

Bored Chemist

Sun Oct 03 2010, 06:03PM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

Assisting a suicide is already a criminal offence in the UK.
My email inbox is full of spam, a fair part of that is trying to sell me prescription only drugs- but without a prescription, so I know the government already cannot enforce laws it already has.
Would some new laws actually help?

There's also the problem of legitimate groups like Exit, who seek to, at least, open the debate on assisted suicide. Would you ban them too?
If so , do you think that forcing the discussion underground would help much?

The sad truth is that many people who commit suicide are not really trying to die. Of course, those who are really seeking to end it all will find some way to do so. Both groups would benefit from some sort of help and I think the government would do better spending money on providing for mental health care (one of the most important, but least glamorous parts of medicine) than on restricting freedom of speech.

Steve Conner

Sun Oct 03 2010, 06:06PM

Registered Member #30 Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706

Yeah, you can't have it both ways. You've posted off-topic articles here before that suggested you were opposed to Internet censorship, and now suddenly you're in favour of it?

Proud Mary

Sun Oct 03 2010, 06:24PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Wot not morul panik, Andre!

Conundrum

Sun Oct 03 2010, 06:25PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4062

under very specific circumstances the public interest is best served by restrictions..
this is not "censorship" but common sense surely?

-A

Mads Barnkob

Sun Oct 03 2010, 07:21PM

Registered Member #1403 Joined: Tue Mar 18 2008, 06:05PM
Location: Denmark, Odense C
Posts: 1968

Conundrum wrote ...

under very specific circumstances the public interest is best served by restrictions..
this is not "censorship" but common sense surely?

-A

Its censorship.

My 2 cents.

quicksilver

Sun Oct 03 2010, 08:44PM

Registered Member #1408 Joined: Fri Mar 21 2008, 03:49PM
Location: Oracle, AZ
Posts: 679

I have strong feelings about censorship but I wonder if there is a substantial difference between the thrust of a website aimed at am emotionally impaired individual and and immature one.

If we make a sound argument that someone seeking suicide (beyond the bounds of terminal illness and pain) needs help and during the time they are in their deepest depression, [they are] emotionally impaired; is that so much further than someone who is emotionally impaired or immature (teens & their 1st romantic rejection)? And that comparison to a child for instance?

We protect children from both exploitation and from grooming by child molesters. Is it censorship or social responsibility that we protect those who are very vulnerable from an easy route to self destruction? We would feel that it's censorship if by protecting children from a predator but yet an adult can suffer great anguish & contemplate self destruction, yet because of his age we believe that they have the "right" to self destruct?

In broader respects, emotional health can be subjective but in terms of self destruction beyond the bounds of terminal illness and pain; circumstances & ways of dealing with anguish can [with time and circumstances];change....

Why is it not our responsibility to be compassionate and offer solutions other than self destruction? Is an adult in the depth of depression as vulnerable? When do we stop being so selfish that other people don't matter as much as "our right" to do what we want?

If a person were about to hurt themselves, perhaps it's "our right" to turn away from them but does that make it in the best interest of humanity to maintain that as a social norm? Or is it in the best interests of society to move our efforts into caring for what happens to others who we don't know or many never see again?

If a blind man were to walk into traffic is that so different than someone who cannot see other venues of dealing with emotional pain?

Proud Mary

Sun Oct 03 2010, 08:56PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Increased government spending on mental health care services would save many more from self-harm than closing down a few fringe websites.

GluD

Sun Oct 03 2010, 08:58PM

Registered Member #1221 Joined: Wed Jan 09 2008, 06:17PM
Location: Odense, Denmark
Posts: 196

"under very specific circumstances the public interest is best served by restrictions"

But who is to decide what is best for the public? you?

Its the same with Greenpeace, they think they can do anything even if it breaks the law, just because they think they've got the "right opinion" and everybody else is paid off by the "big oil" or the "big chem" or the "big x,y,z..." nothing matters as long as you got a good cause!! i think thats a very real threat to the democraty and socity in general, people getting carryed away with their fellings.

Of course forcing someone to commit suicide should be investigated but as the bored chemist revealed there are already laws against that in the UK, probably similar laws in most of europe.

Conundrum

Sun Oct 03 2010, 10:28PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4062

with an issue this important it needs to be resolved by public debate.

If you consult the vast majority of people they would probably agree that such sites should be blocked, unfortunately the wheels of government roll far too slowly for significant changes in a reasonable timeframe...

I wonder if a more efficient system would be to decide important issues "on the fly" using a randomised messaging system like a public vote, by way of the mobile phone system.
So in effect 0.1% of the population run the country for a percentage of the time, but that 0.1% varies depending on time so no one group of individuals has any real power to misuse..

comments?
-A

1 2 3 4 next last

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob