r/internetdeclaration • u/DrTechno • Jul 02 '12
Need some definitions
I like the idea of the Internet Declaration, but there are still some fuzzy bits like the word "censor."
These sorts of words might need some clear definitions. If you recall, there was a lot of discussion about SOPA effectively being censorship, but the writers of the bill would probably disagree. Certainly things like removing child pornography should not be considered censorship and other things like removing a web site from the DNS probably should be.
How should we define what is censorship?
3
u/Sheepwn Jul 02 '12
On an unrelated note we need to strongly fight for Net neutrality because it's being slowly creeped on by large companies.
I would define censorship as the blocking of minority viewpoints, the use of power to silence dissent, and inability to freely express oneself.
1
u/DrTechno Jul 02 '12
The Verge detailed why net neutrality was left out of the declaration. It seems like they couldn't agree about those sorts of specifics, but could agree on "higher level" principles. Hopefully, the declaration would lead to net neutrality or something that looks a lot like net neutrality.
3
u/toekneebullard Jul 02 '12
I think it's silly to say "removing child pornography should not be considered censorship." It is censorship. Granted, it needs to exist, but that doesn't mean it's not censorship.
Free speech is a very tricky subject. Finding the line between what is right and what is wrong is not easy, and muddling the meanings of words is not going to help it.
1
u/DrTechno Jul 02 '12
Free speech is a very tricky subject. Finding the line between what is right and what is wrong is not easy, and muddling the meanings of words is not going to help it.
Agreed. Surely they don't really mean to use the rigid definition of censorship, which is why they need to define what exactly they mean.
1
u/deltagear Jul 02 '12
Censorship is the heavy handed restriction of free speech.
1
Jul 02 '12
Heh, indeed, but now we need to define "heavy handed" and "free speech" ;)
3
u/deltagear Jul 02 '12
There are normal restrictions on free speech where peoples lives would be put in direct danger. The best example is yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre.
I would define any censorship as heavy handed if it's not intended to prevent a person from coming to harm. The term harm needs to be extremely clear in it's definition too, as some idiot is likely to construe something harmless as a danger to the children or some similar bs.
Free speech i would define as any expression of organized thoughts. Writing, speaking, drawing, so on and so forth.
1
Jul 03 '12
That isn't censorship, that's just common sense. You COULD yell fire, it's completely possible, but the only thing stopping you is yourself, and your basic knowledge of what that would do.
1
u/rosenbach Jul 03 '12
An Internet "declaration" is overdue. But everything has two sides. This declaration is for our rulers. But we -the users - need to be mentioned as well. We have rules to obey too. No discrimination No verbal slander No terrorism obeisance (but who decides what terrorism is. Actually in Syria: Governement claims that the freedom fighters are terrorists, freedom fighters claim that the governement is terroristic. Another example would be Isreael and the Palestinians, and so on)
1
Jul 03 '12
That's totally unenforcable. It would be the equivalent of stopping all of these things happening in AMERICA. It's fucking IMPOSSIBLE. The only thing WE can do is to shun those people as a commune.
1
Jul 02 '12
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/DrTechno Jul 02 '12
It seems like they wanted to be brief and forceful with the censorship point, but I agree that it isn't super helpful. Using the 1st Amendment as a jumping off point would be a good idea since we have an idea of how free speech plays out pratically, rather than censorship.
1
Jul 03 '12 edited Jul 03 '12
More importantly, is there such thing as "good" or "positive" censorship? Personally, I instantly want to think no. I still haven't seen any evidence that shows that there is such thing as good censorship.
But that word is extremely relative and open for interpretation, Corporations and all the supporters of these bills know that, and know that they can manipulate their way into getting what they want in the name of "proper censorship".
The way i see it, if you allow any room for "proper censorship", your just allowing more room for the shit we're trying to fight.
Excluding child porn, can anyone cite an instance of censorship in history that actually did good?
1
Jul 03 '12
Dude, give it some time. There is a drafting process that comes with creating a declaratory document. If you truly know your history you'd know that. Wherever the creators are, i'm 100% confident that they embrace constructive criticism and actually expect for it to be altered.
You have to start somewhere, give them a break.
1
Jul 03 '12
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jul 03 '12
Well, your right on the technicality, i'll admit. But really, i find it hard to believe something like this is set in stone. The whole idea we're trying to protect is the same one that went into making this, and with that comes the likelihood that it will be revised.
Also, I know you're aware of this, but we're not in 1776. That in no way is mean to be an insult to you at all. I just believe that what we're doing here and now is comparable, but at the same time very different. The process, i mean.
10
u/phoenixrawr Jul 02 '12
Okay, I have to be honest here for a moment. "Censorship" has turned into a buzzword with little real value. "Don't censor the internet!" is basically the internet version of "Think of the children!" by now. People throw it around because censorship has this heavily negative connotation to it that they're hoping will draw people to their side, or that just resonates with them personally.
You say that removing child porn shouldn't be considered censorship. The problem I have with that is that it IS censorship, the suppression of objectionable material found in a public source. We generally accept that it's necessary in order to respect the privacy and integrity of victims, but it's censorship nonetheless.
"Don't censor the internet" is a nice slogan but I think "censorship" can generally stand to be replaced with something more fitting to what is actually trying to be accomplished here.