Worldly Talk

Civil discussion and debate on real world events and issues.

New internet censorship bill with even more exploitative name.

New internet censorship bill with even more exploitative name.

So this is just great. A new bill that apparently would require ISPs to track your online movements, store that data for 18 months, and give it to the government if they simply asked.

I personally am disgusted by the way these people are exploiting the suffering of children for their own personal gain. Oh, and I feel the same way about child pornographers.

A similar thread was started regarding this a while ago. The same article was also linked, but it looks like the bill has been abandoned.

Last action was December of last year... I wouldn't necessarily let my guard down just yet. Still, it's good to know this seems to be going in the right direction.

You know, I may sound like an old fogey here - actually, the dead giveaway is that most people don't use the word 'fogey' anymore. But back in the day (another fogeyism), child abusers were handled by the people. Not necessarily lynch mobs, mind ya, but through social ostracism and even, at times, a little bar room violence. Then, the police would look the other way. Now, it's the vigilante who is considered the greatest perpetrator, if he indeed ever gets the chance to do something.

I'm not suggesting such a violent answer to such a heinous crime... thinking... thinking.... well, maybe I am. The usual response is "Well, what if he's really innocent?" Puppy crap. People know.

That's getting off subject, but it has a tie. Although I think we should use all weapons available in such a battle, there are those who will jump at the chance to use such information for personal gain. A question we should ask ourselves is,

"Would such a tactic as implementing a system that would protect youth from being emotionally scarred for life, having their very dignity taken from them by such an animal, be worth the loss of personal freedoms that: we may not even realize are gone; seldom use; and shouldn't bother you if you are not committing a crime?"

Just askin', is all...

So, Innocent until speculated Guilty Agricolus? The fact of the matter is that many people are entirely capable of being entirely up their own asses. And the fact of the matter is, ruining someone's life over simple speculation is a bad thing. The police get involved because they have a higher standard of evidence than John Q Public. A public witch hunt is more likely just to catch up people that the community dislikes or mistrusts, not the people that are actually committing a crime.

And the fact of the matter is that these aren't just minor freedoms we're giving up. The reasonable expectation of privacy is a human right, as is the right to due process and a fair trial. Would you agree to letting the government install cameras in everyone's house? After all, it'd help catch pedophiles too, and all sorts of other crimes? Or maybe just tap your phones and read your letters? It's all fundamentally the same thing.

So, Savayan, what price are you putting on the sweet little boy down the street; the one you waved to this morning as he stood at the schoolbus stop; the one you have watched growing up, perhaps stopping to talk to him as you worked on your front porch, explaining to him how to hold a hammer, how to hit a nail; the one your own son knows; the one who, your son, his father and you threw a baseball back and forth across the white picket fence, talking about sports heros--what price his safety and security? Not you personally - the global 'you'. I might be tempted to let responsible people put cameras all over the neighborhood, if it meant one child may get to grow up right.

Just askin' is all...

What price is everyone else's? That's nothing but a blatant appeal to emotion, not a reasoned argument. The fact is that we already have mechanisms to deal with this problem, and we do a broadly good job of it. It is not such an endemic problem that we need to suspend due process and treat the entire population as suspected criminals. If you want that sort of data, get a warrant. As it is, this is simply a transparent attempt by the government to set up the infrastructure to spy on its' population. They just slapped the The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act title on it to appeal to people like you that are willing to give up essential liberties for the sake of some illusion of security.

My girlfriend has an 11 year-old kid. The way you deal with it is by knowing your neighbors and talking to your kid, not installing video cameras in the homes of everyone on the block, because those people on the block don't want to eat your child. They're your neighbors, for chrissakes.

If there's a creep around hunting your 'sweet little boy' idea, he's gonna take the kid to a place where there aren't any cameras, so all your overbearing protectionism is going to earn is the loss of rights of your innocent neighbors.

Frankly, I want to know why you want to teach my kid how to hold a hammer. He's my kid, not yours.

Originally Posted by Agricolus View Post

Just askin' is all...
No, no you are not "just askin'." You're being a Conservative troll, using the same types of insane, baffling logic to try and sugar coat the complete dessication and dismantling of our society. You are using kind words and a nice dialectic to try and make it sound like you aren't advocating bad ideas. It's horrendously irritating and downright insulting for you to pretend to be "just askin'" when you aren't. You are not asking: you're implying. You're implying that what you're saying is right because of some erroneous connection between privacy and catching sexual offenders, and your doing so sickens me.

What I find hilarious is that someone is probably going to report me for doing exactly what you're going to claim you're doing to defend your down-to-earth-style fear mongering: speaking my mind. You know, that whole freedom of speech thing.

Originally Posted by Savayan View Post
What price is everyone else's?
An interesting question, no doubt. Of what rights are we assured? The total freedom to do anything we want, when, where, to whom we want? Where is there a line?

I don't even pretend to think that a religious background gives you rights over and above Society's laws and suggestions. It must come from our individual social 'units' - marijuana is accepted in some countries, but a serious crime in others. So where did they draw the line? In the sand, the same sand where their ancestors laid down the rules for their young, and were passed on, eventually to you and I?

Hypothetical - what if marijuana had been 'discovered' in biblical times - perhaps something like it had (wine, for one), and was smoked in social settings over the generations to now supplant Bud Lite as the most prevalent Super Bowl commercial. A different line, perhaps.

You can quote the Bill of Rights and every other document, but were they not written in a different time, in different settings? You would be considered a lunatic if you tried to put internet restrictions in the Constitution way back then. So where does their line in the sand start and end?

It's a line that constantly has to be moved, with changing conditions and, most importantly today, technology. The Founding Fathers would certainly cringe at the concept of hanging a TV monitor from every tree on Main Street, to look for child molestors.

...or would they?... assume they suddenly thought that moving pictures of crimes might be put on a polycarbonate disk and replayed on a glass tube, to be used as evidence against the guilty... even though child molestation has been going on for centuries, millennia--wasn't it accepted in high places in Rome?

...just askin'....


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Blog   Myth-Weavers Status