<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

previous 1 2 3 4 next last

Move Thread

LAN_403

Arcstarter

Sun Oct 03 2010, 11:52PM

Registered Member #1225 Joined: Sat Jan 12 2008, 01:24AM
Location: Beaumont, Texas, USA
Posts: 2253

I don't care if it is censorship, there should be some limit somewhere. We cannot walk outside and start spewing obscenities, so why should we have the freedom to encourage suicide?

As many suicides as there are, i think anything that could be done, should. How about that heartbreaking story of the guy who's friends started his webcam while he was having relations etc, and he ended up committing suicide? This is huge in the US, it is all the media.

That said, i also believe something should be done about bullying, even if it requires some fairly extreme measure be taken. There have been too many suicides just this year in USA to keep track of, many of which because of bullying.

Coronafix

Mon Oct 04 2010, 02:50AM

Registered Member #160 Joined: Mon Feb 13 2006, 02:07AM
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 938

You can't make anyone do anything. If you could then it wouldn't really be suicide, it would be murder.
There is a lot of sick stuff out there, why stop just at those sites, why not the rest of them. Why not this site, in some eyes it may be seen as dangerous, as careful and regimented as this forum is.
Censorship is not the answer.

quicksilver

Mon Oct 04 2010, 03:50PM

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

If prohibiting fraud is not considered censorship why is promoting self destruction [based on emotional issues] considered censorship? Do not all circumstances of an emotional nature change?

In the USA we have the "right" to freedom of self expression; within some circumstances. We are not permitted to yell "FIRE" in a crowed theater for the reason that the overall impact is to the detriment of the larger group. That is not considered censorship either; it's considered sensible to not endanger others simply because we feel like yelling "FIRE".
{Again, leaving out terminal illness & pain....}
Aren't people in such a deep depression that they would consider suicide just as vulnerable?

I really have a deep distaste for censorship but I don't see this issue as one of limiting "freedom of self expression". It appears to capitalize on those who are very emotionally vulnerable. If it was a collective discourse, all the web-site writers would be dead.

Hon1nbo

Mon Oct 04 2010, 06:59PM

Registered Member #902 Joined: Sun Jul 15 2007, 08:17PM
Location: North Texas
Posts: 1040

on the original topic (not going to get too into the discussion, as I do not want to accidentally provoke it or get off topic as many of these things do)

Freedom of Speech is the most Sacred of rights, but unfortunately there are VERY rare situations in which something must be done. Not prohibit free speech, but simply prevent it from deforming from a pure act of freedom into a perverse degradation of society.

For example, in the USA the media reporting from conflict areas are given notice of certain things before their occurrence (of course, only parts of those things and not something of great secrecy but sometimes important nonetheless). However, they are barred from talking about them at all until they either happen, or never if they don't occur. The reason is simple: they're allowed to report it freely once it no longer has the impact of life or death situations. If they reported it freely without restriction, there could be lives lost.

Now, I would agree that restrictions on things such as boards that are allowing the posting of methods for the intent of suicide, and especially the users provoking their use. I have not seen the board, so I cannot say as to it specifically. So lets say that the board was not officially pro-suicide and the moderators were trying to stop such posters, then I simply think that the posters should be blocked by their ISP and prosecuted.

I'm trying to not get any farther into this as this type of topic can become a balancing act of what is appropriate to post and such.

-Jimmy

Sulaiman

Mon Oct 04 2010, 10:47PM

Registered Member #162 Joined: Mon Feb 13 2006, 10:25AM
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3140

Freedom of speech is neither a right nor is it sacred - It's political smokescreen.
Can anyone tell me of a country that truly allows freedom of speech?
If there is one then it's one without government - not yours.
(Freedom fighter or Terrorist? etc.)
Under our previous Labour (socialist ???) party Government,
we in UK have all been made criminals
- you can be arrested for just about anything with no legal recourse for a month
- they introduced over 4000 new criminal offences with no thought to implementation
- i.e. a weapon of Government against the people
- the new lot say they'll reverse this but they will not - too much power lost.

Should all of my paper mail and telephone calls be monitored too?
Do we need 'thought police'?

If a crime is committed in the real or virtual world then the law should be invoked.
Does it matter whether it's person-person verbally, or via 'phone, messaging, internet, smoke signals? No, it's the illegal act not the medium of communication.

Blanket powers of censorship are derided if it's China for example,
so why make your country like that?

Personally I'm in favour of censorship,
like GM, it's the application of it that I may object to.

Chris Russell

Tue Oct 05 2010, 12:23PM

... not Russel!
Registered Member #1 Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052

I'd say that information about suicide, such as the implementation of various methods, the relative effectiveness of each method, etc, is not something that should be restricted. A person has a right to decide whether he or she wishes to continue living, provided that person can demonstrate competency to make that decision. Forcing life on someone unwilling to live does not seem much better than forcing death on someone unwilling to die.

It's people who are not competent to make such a decision that I would worry about. Should actively advocating suicide to mentally vulnerable people be a crime? I'd say absolutely. Should actively advocating suicide to anyone, period, be illegal? I'd say probably not. The problem is, even if such a law were on the books (and there already are such laws in many places), little would change. Some websites will be shut down. A few people will go to jail. The real sickos will turn to proxies or other anonymous methods of communication.

Censorship on the internet, however, is an entirely different issue. Finding the persons responsible for a website that is actively causing harm (or has a clear and present danger of causing harm) to others is not censorship anymore than enforcing existing child pornography laws is censorship. Censorship is requiring ISPs to have the capability to block access to specific websites. The list of websites to be blocked is usually generated by some hazy bureaucratic organization that is not directly accountable to the people they claim to be protecting. Once such a system is in place, there's no going back.

Proud Mary wrote ...

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

Best comment in the entire thread, hands down. Teach people more about how to recognize depression in themselves and others, and make sure that help is readily available to everyone who needs it. That will do orders of magnitude more than any anti-suicide-encouraging law ever could.

Arcstarter wrote ...

As many suicides as there are, i think anything that could be done, should. How about that heartbreaking story of the guy who's friends started his webcam while he was having relations etc, and he ended up committing suicide? This is huge in the US, it is all the media.

As tragic as this story is, this person's circumstances are not typical of most suicides. It just makes more interesting news. There are far better ways to spend our time and energy regarding suicide prevention at this juncture. Consider that since this young man died, well over a thousand people have committed suicide in the US alone. Over 1200 people had to commit suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge before the Board of Directors would even entertain the notion of a suicide barrier; now nobody seems to be interested in donating the $50 million it will require to actually build it. Very, very few of these people received encouragement. Most of them simply didn't get the help they needed.

Conundrum

Wed Oct 13 2010, 06:33AM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061

i seem to have opened up the proverbial can of worms here..

Maybe one simple solution is to require some sort of failsafe, so unless you have a good reason for full unrestricted Internet access and provide a unique ID to confirm you are of a responsible age all you get are the basics (i.e. limited email, news sites, no video, IM, Java or Flash ads etc) which also prevents the vast majority of malware as well.
said restrictions should also apply to people whose PC's have been compromised by botnets or viruses until they fix the problem.

I also feel that ISP's should provide at least some level of support for people affected by zeroday and/or mass compromise attacks, if need be a bootable repair disk made available to those who need it as a direct download from their homepage, as the lesser of two evils.
(you'd think Microsoft would have made a "XP/Vista/7" disk with all the updates on by now, the bandwidth waste is truly appalling for those on limited tariffs. 400MB worth of updates is ridiculous)

needless to say the civil rights groups would be unhappy but it would solve a lot of problems.

-A

ragnar

Wed Oct 13 2010, 07:33PM

Registered Member #63 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 06:18AM
Location:
Posts: 1425

Patently absurd. I don't know how you keep a straight face.

GluD

Wed Oct 13 2010, 09:39PM

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

I think Conundrum has been out in the sun too long time, somewhere in Nevada....

dmg

Wed Oct 13 2010, 10:15PM

Registered Member #2628 Joined: Fri Jan 15 2010, 12:23AM
Location:
Posts: 627

Conundrum wrote ...

Maybe one simple solution is to require some sort of failsafe, so unless you have a good reason for full unrestricted Internet access and provide a unique ID to confirm you are of a responsible age all you get are the basics (i.e. limited email, news sites, no video, IM, Java or Flash ads etc) which also prevents the vast majority of malware as well.
said restrictions should also apply to people whose PC's have been compromised by botnets or viruses until they fix the problem.

This system is just great for someone seeking total control and censorship over a critical source of information, but in the end, I trully belive that it will not solve the problem, in fact may just make it worse, why should a select people have access to all these sites and no one else? Is that one person perfect and will never use it as you intend to prevent?

Also, what gives the right to anyone, even you, to deside what person can or cannot use this valuable information source? yes, there are sites that are not the best, as I am baised against, and im sure there are some of you that can relate (no site in particular, just a general statement).

But with doing this, you are not going to change the minds of individuals who hold an ill will, or even the suicide mentioned earlier, blocking them from a website wont help them out, or prevent them from carrying out thier intended actions, and at the very same time you are blocking much of the population from getting any information online, to me this is sounding a lot like complete mass censorship, anything that doesnt favor someone with some influence in this matter, simply wont be allowed, regardless of what it is and for.

This is my 2 cents on this, you have every right to disagree with every word I said, but this is what my common sence tells me.

previous 1 2 3 4 next last

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