So here's this attempt. Let's hear different people's views and then (politely) discuss the whys, the hows, and the implications.
Just as a quick seed: I very rarely use the 'report' button on posts because I believe it helps create a chilling effect on free speech. That is, with the way moderation works here you're never quite sure what they moderators are unhappy about or what they'll decide is crossing the line and edit out (or just close the thread), and I would rather hear people's opinions and thoughts, however distasteful, then have the conversation shut down. As such, I almost never report.
Similarly, I do not believe that library computers (whether that's K-12 school, public, or academic library) should have filtering software because it blocks off too many legitimate resources, and even if a librarian can disable it, having to request that creates a chilling effect on what people can access.
Anyway, this is a topic and issue that I'm very interested in, so please, let's hear some opinions. And let's keep our responses respectful. I might not like your opinions, but that doesn't mean I don't think you should be able to share them.
Depends on what you consider censorship. Mutilating a work is a massive crime, IMO, but the thought of a kid accidentally stumbling upon Salò o le 120 giornate di Sodoma scares me. I don't believe in censoring a work's content, but restricting access to it is something I'm not against.
I am okay with restricting access. That is different from saying you can't produce something. Its reasonable to keep pornographic and violent stuff away from kids for example.
As such, by making it 'restricted', you are, in many cases, discouraging access for adults and children both.
Re: Porn
Funny thing, but most filtering software that libraries use to block access to porn also blocks sites on safe sex, **** support groups, and sexuality in general. And we're not just talking K-12 school libraries, but academic and public libraries, where adults would be going for their electronic resources.
We can take the case of the ministers who have picketed soldiers funerals and contrast it to the case of the cartoonist threatened for drawings of the prophet Mohammed. Most people would make the argument that the first case, being that of the ministers hateful speech, should be stopped while the cartoonist has a right to print anything he wants.
I have my opinions, but I am interested in what others think.
I will say this, in this case at least, the cartoonist never forces his speech on others insensitively and censoring his work obviously sets up an extremely dangerous precedent.
As far as public computers are concerned, online censorship as a whole is absurd, and if you are ever in need of bypassing filters, I would suggest proxy.org as a solution to bypassing filters to get at content, or if you are a geek like me, bring your own copy of firefox on a USB that you can then use without having to worry about any kind of filtering. ;)
You have to make sure people who might suffer psychological damage from watching, reading, or listening to a work are safe from it, without stopping those who are READY for it from looking at it.
I think in principle I would agree with this, but in practice find it silly. The reason why is that what people call 'psychological damage' is very subjective. I remember reading recently one poster that thought kids seeing sex would forever damage their psyche, which is odd considering that any kid that grows up in a farm or around animals won't have sex be a mystery for very long.
In the end, what is and isn't "psychologically damaging" is very excessively fuzzy, there isn't a consistently applied standard, and so-on. My personal choice as far as a 'solution' would be that children/minors should be supervised by their guardian/parent, who should be aware of what they're watching/playing. And that the labels companies put on things like movies and games should mean something. When a game gets the 'sexual content' sticker for having one kiss, that makes the entire thing a sham that's pretty useless.
All-in-all, I'm of the belief that kids are made of sterner stuff then most people give them credit for, and by the time they're going to be getting stuff for themselves from outside sources they'll probably be able to cope with most things they find.
That said, I feel that I should point out that barring protesters from funerals is not censorship in the technical sense.
This is probably going to be an unpopular stance, but I personally would not take any action to prohibit people from protesting funerals. Is it distasteful, disrespectful, and all-together rude and unkind? You bet. Is it their right? Also 'you bet'. As was once said, "those that would give up freedom for safety deserve neither", and that applies just as much to freedom of expression and safety from opposing viewpoints as it does to less conceptual forms of freedom and safety.
As far as public computers are concerned, online censorship as a whole is absurd, and if you are ever in need of bypassing filters, I would suggest proxy.org as a solution to bypassing filters to get at content, or if you are a geek like me, bring your own copy of firefox on a USB that you can then use without having to worry about any kind of filtering. ;)
Well, the practicality is another issue entirely... but the simple fact is that even if there is a work-around that anyone that wants to know about can do, it becomes an unintended information test. Do you want to access web sites that talk about safe sex? Well, you have to have a bit of tech savvy first. At that point you have what was supposed to be a ban become a restriction contingent on tech savviness, and that's just as bad. Education to information resources should not be contingent on knowing some trick or work around.
I think in principle I would agree with this, but in practice find it silly. The reason why is that what people call 'psychological damage' is very subjective. I remember reading recently one poster that thought kids seeing sex would forever damage their psyche, which is odd considering that any kid that grows up in a farm or around animals won't have sex be a mystery for very long.
In the end, what is and isn't "psychologically damaging" is very excessively fuzzy, there isn't a consistently applied standard, and so-on. My personal choice as far as a 'solution' would be that children/minors should be supervised by their guardian/parent, who should be aware of what they're watching/playing. And that the labels companies put on things like movies and games should mean something. When a game gets the 'sexual content' sticker for having one kiss, that makes the entire thing a sham that's pretty useless.
All-in-all, I'm of the belief that kids are made of sterner stuff then most people give them credit for, and by the time they're going to be getting stuff for themselves from outside sources they'll probably be able to cope with most things they find.
Actually, psychological damage isn't fuzzy at all. I'm talking about developing fears and phobias, NOT shock, catatonia, or whatever BS people say might happen when kids see people having sex. I'm talking about seeing stuff intended to inspire fear on grown-ups which is more potent on kids, and having to deal with that in a tangible fashion. There are very clear examples of stuff in movies and games which can cause that on sensitive minds simply because of the immersive nature of the medium. It's not related to porn, but it IS related to violence, fear, and visceral reactions of various kinds.
I think that it should be parents that are in charge of censoring things for their children and not the government or any other entity. If you don't want your child watching the playboy channel then you shouldn't have ordered it.
Businesses should be allowed to censor themselves. A business should be allowed to target family/kid audiences or adult audiences and shouldn't be shunned or harmed based on their decision. They should also have the complete ability to decided how things will be censored within their own place of business.
All censorship seems to do is cause people to get inventive. EX: Many curse words are censored on these boards but we can still curse. We can say frell, frak, or franking. ;) We all know that they have the same meaning as the F word. We can also curse using acronyms such as with WTF. So censorship didn't really stop me from cursing here but instead encouraged me to be inventive with how to circumvent the censorship.
Basically I don't think it really helps at all. I feel as if it is really only supported because it makes some people feel more safe, I think mainly parents, and it takes some responsibility from people, seeming to be parents, when someone can censor the bad word for themselves and for those around them.
But what about when you don't get to choose and are freaked out? Take Happy Tree Friends. A three-year old could zap into it unwittingly, and be horrified by the gruesome deaths of the cute little animals. He didn't choose to be scared, did he?
What does it matter if the child didn't choose to be scared? If the child chose to change the channel then the child took the choice to be surprised, for better or for worse, whether the child knew it or not.
Second, you can choose to create a situation in which you might be surprised. It's just taking risks, creating a cause without knowing what the effect is.
...That's an oxymoron. You can't choose to be surprised, by definition. A surprise changes your worldview. The child was going with his worldview, so he couldn't possibly have chose to see something he didn't know existed.
That's the thing. The child knows not what is on the other channels. What the child may know is how to change the channel. Choosing to change the channel to view something new, to view something unknown, to view something that may surprise ones self is choosing to be surprised. It is a surprise because the child did not know what was on the next channel. It was a choice because it was the child that chose to change the channel in the first place. The child chose to be surprised.
First, a three year old choosing their own entertainment is just silly. It's not their choice, it's their guardian's choice, and anything that happens is the guardian's fault, not the childs.
I agree completely with this. If anyone should be at fault it is the child's parents/guardians for allowing the child to randomly flip through channels.
Additionally, kids choose their own entertainment constantly. When they roam the house and play with things, aren't they choosing their own entertainment too? I fail to see such a massive difference, except in content. In both cases, the kid picks WHAT he's doing.
But then you wouldn't be surprised by the "if", but by the "how". It's a different type of surprise.
Additionally, kids choose their own entertainment constantly. When they roam the house and play with things, aren't they choosing their own entertainment too? I fail to see such a massive difference, except in content. In both cases, the kid picks WHAT he's doing.
That is true except that in one case the child knows what toy he/she is playing with and what to expect with that toy while the with the other situation the child doesn't know the content of the channel that he/she is about to change to.
I agree completely with this. If anyone should be at fault it is the child's parents/guardians for allowing the child to randomly flip through channels.
First, a three year old choosing their own entertainment is just silly. It's not their choice, it's their guardian's choice, and anything that happens is the guardian's fault, not the childs.
Either we're misunderstanding each other when we meant the same thing, or there's a double standard at work here.
Incidentally, I just noticed the irony of the last few statements. You guys say you are against restriction, right? Well then, explain these comments.
Either we're misunderstanding each other when we meant the same thing, or there's a double standard at work here.
And what do you find contradictory about it?
Additionally, kids choose their own entertainment constantly. When they roam the house and play with things, aren't they choosing their own entertainment too? I fail to see such a massive difference, except in content. In both cases, the kid picks WHAT he's doing.
Regardless, it is the adult that creates and chooses the environment, not the child. And limiting access to resources and information to adults on the basis that a child might get unrestricted access to it moves the burden of responsibility from the individual to the collective, and encourages people to 'trust' that the TV is a safe babysitter and things like that.
To put it another way, if you want a 'safe' environment for a child, then you have two choices. Create a safe environment for the child by limiting access to 'unsafe' resources and objects in that environment and keep the child in that environment, or restrict access to 'unsafe' resources and objects everywhere and remove the burden of responsibility from the guardian.
As I have strong beliefs in freedom of information and personal responsibility, it should be clear which option I favor.
And what do you find contradictory about it?
That you're against censorship, but find nothing wrong with a parent restricting what a child can do or see...when that's a form of censorship. Either you were saying you are against creative censorship but not user-end censorship, or you're contradicting yourself.
Incidentally, I just noticed the irony of the last few statements. You guys say you are against restriction, right? Well then, explain these comments.
I'm against restrictions and censorship for adults. Children are a special case, and should be handled as such. However, I don't believe that creating a 'safe' environment for children should be at the cost of ease of access and unrestricted access for adults.
As an example, if you don't want your child to be exposed to shows you don't favor on TV, then you should control their access to TV, not have the shows pulled from showing. Don't want your kid to watch movies you don't approve of? Don't let them in your house and don't let your kid check out movies from the library/video store without supervision until such time as you trust them.
Is that clearer?
That you're against censorship, but find nothing wrong with a parent restricting what a child can do or see...when that's a form of censorship. Either you were saying you are against creative censorship but not user-end censorship, or you're contradicting yourself.
I am against all forms of government censorship. A parent censoring thing things for their children is yes censorship but it's also called parenting. The whole point of having a freedom of speech and no government censorship is that it is a person that gets to decided what they want to be exposed to and not any government entity. Children, in many places, aren't seen as full members of society and are more or less the property of their guardians. Because a guardian has absolute responsibility over a child then they should have all right to censor the child until they deem the child old enough to do as they wish or they become an adult according to the law.
I don't have a problem with censoring certain forms of free speech. I would rather have ratings than outright censorship. Pornography is one example. Currently you need to be 18 to purchase it legally in the USA. That's fine with me. It really isn't censored, it's restricted. As an adult I am free to purchase and read it anywhere I choose including in public. There may be some restrictions, but overall it's not a crime in most places.
I don't have a problem with television censoring some speech as well. While I don't have a problem with foul language (I can make a drunken sailor with Tourette's proud), I do have a problem with freeform cussing. I don't want to hear a child repeating those same words without any understanding of what they mean. To be honest, dropping the f-bomb every other word sounds just as stupid as saying "like" and "um" every other word. I don't think cuss words should be censored by the government except in some cases (children's programming for example).
Freedom of all types needs to come with some responsibility. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that you should. Because some people can't seem to understand this basic premise we end up seeing unnecessary censorship and other laws. People need to understand that they are going to be offended and that they have the choice to leave the subject that is offending them. They also have the right to speak out about that same offense. They don't have the right to tell me, or anyone else, what can and cannot be said.
As for libraries censoring, I'm very glad that the libraries in my area refuse to censor. The screens are set up so that it is difficult for someone other than the user to see. If someone is reading over my shoulder and they are offended, I tell the to f-off. They chose to read what I was viewing. I didn't bring it to them.
Some things bother me, like flag-burning, but I would never want them censored. Just because I don't like something doesn't mean that people shouldn't exercise their rights. If I want to be able to say what I want about religion, sex, and politics, then I need to allow others to do the same. It's not easy but it is necessary.
I grew up in a poor neighborhood and there were a lot kids that had more information than needed at their age because it was too easy for teenagers to things that should be restricted. Their was also a rise in teenage drug use in my home town as well as teenage pregnancy because of the lack of adult supervision simply because their parents couldn't supervise them.
The problem with leaving it completely up to the parents is that some parents don't have the time, because of working two jobs; don't have the money for child care, because their still poor; and don't have the resources as in family to watch their kids while they work.
In this case my problem would be with the parents having kids when they didn't have the time or resources to raise the child in a manner that they would like. Also with not cutting back on what they have available on their cabal or satellite, or leaving their computer wear their children can access it and get onto the internet. I still may seem a bit harsh or what not but I still think that the censorship should come from the parents. I don't want to be censored just because a few people didn't plan things out ahead of time and can now not take care of their children.
I do feel that saying certain things (i.e. racial slurs and similar things) should be viewed negatively by society as a whole; however, I don't feel that it is the government's place to step into someone's personal life and tell them what they can and can't say. I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I don't find some of the things that some people say to be acceptable, it's their right to say it. This is one of the reasons which I don't like the idea of "political correctness."
The main problem I see with political correctness is that (in my opinion) it has been taken way too far. There are things which I could say which 99.9% of people would not feel are offensive at all, but, if one person finds it offensive and presses the matter, I can find myself in some serious hot water over saying it. I think that as a society we have become too sensitive. Like I said, I agree with the idea that saying certain things should be considered taboo in "polite society," but political correctness has been taken to such an extreme that it (again, in my opinion) is ridiculous. I don't think that people should be the subject of bigotry, racism, and other such things; however, now we have problems such as reverse-racism in which a member of a minority group can use the threat of filing a lawsuit as a way of extorting what they want from someone else.
In some places you can't even make your child stand in the corner for misbehaving because it is considered to be "psychological torture." There's also the cliche case of a criminal getting injured while in the midst of a crime and then suing the person they were robbing, mugging, or whatever. I know that neither of these directly relate to censorship and free speech, but I do feel that it is part of the same issue. There was a time when people were expected to endure some amount of hardship, and you were taught that things don't always go your way. I'm not saying that being a complete prick to people or a hard-azz is the way to go, and I do think that we have made some progress by moving away from the extreme views of that side (i.e. borderline child abuse to discipline a child, an eye for an eye laws,) but I think that we've gone too far in the other direction now. We've become creatures of comfort to such an extent that any amount of discomfort throws us into a frenzy. I feel that we need balance. You shouldn't expect all of your life to be hardship, but, at the same time, society should accept that everything isn't all peaches and cream; there will be hardship sometimes, and, instead of teaching people to cry and complain about it, we should learn to deal with it.
I know I got away from the free speech topic a bit, but I do feel -like I said- that it is all part of the same issue. That issue is that we expect everything to be easy. As such, I feel that we've lost the ability to deal with hardship. We don't know how to handle it when someone says something which offends; we don't know how to handle it when we fail; we don't know how to handle loss. I feel that we can expect people to live up to a higher standard when it comes to racism, bigotry, sexism, and similat things, but still do it in a way which is reasonable, and not create a social system in which we are so sensitive that we cripple ourselves. I don't want to live in or as a Clockwork Orange.
In this case my problem would be with the parents having kids when they didn't have the time or resources to raise the child in a manner that they would like. Also with not cutting back on what they have available on their cabal or satellite, or leaving their computer wear their children can access it and get onto the internet. I still may seem a bit harsh or what not but I still think that the censorship should come from the parents. I don't want to be censored just because a few people didn't plan things out ahead of time and can now not take care of their children.
That sounds like you favor the right of free speech over the freedom of reproductive rights. I'm not sure, I can believe in that all. The prioritie in that statement don't seem to be my own.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this one because I like you too much. Your dancing around in your birthday suit keeps me from smoking.
If the parents need to work several jobs to make ends meet then how are they able to afford cable, internet, and various other similar luxuries? I'm not trying to restrict people from having children, but it seems to me that if you have children then putting food on the table and having shelter should be more of a priority than being able to watch tv and play games on the internet.
This is probably going to be an unpopular stance, but I personally would not take any action to prohibit people from protesting funerals. Is it distasteful, disrespectful, and all-together rude and unkind? You bet. Is it their right? Also 'you bet'. As was once said, "those that would give up freedom for safety deserve neither", and that applies just as much to freedom of expression and safety from opposing viewpoints as it does to less conceptual forms of freedom and safety.
Protesting the civil rights of homosexuals at the funeral of a soldier killed in the line of duty? That group is called the Westboro Baptist Church and that's what they're protesting. Here in Iowa, cemetaries are considered private property and they can be arrested for trespassing at the best and depending on the jurisdiction, you can use force to remove them from your property*.
I believe the harm they do to the deceased's family warrants an exception to the rule of free speech. I am a firm believer in the right to free speech, but there are times when common decency should be exercised. I will listen to any damned fool thing you want to rant about, but funerals are sacred. I have a criminal record now because of those fools, apparently the free expression of my opinion that day is called assault.
*The family of the deceased owns that plot and by extension, has a right to demand the removal of protesters by civil authorities. Under the trespassing laws, you only have to warn them before you start shooting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As to censorship, it's a touchy subject.
If public computer terminals limit access to the web, that is their choice and I will respect it. I will be the first to offer the use of my access to someone that cannot gain full and unrestricted access to the internet if they wish, but on someone else's computer, it's their call. I don't agree with censorship being forced on anyone, but others don't share my view.
I shudder every time I think about libraries and schools removing books from their shelves. When education plays second fiddle to political correctness, all of our people suffer. Without access to the things that might offend us, how do we learn from it?
And those books removed, what do they do with them? How far is it from removing a book to banning it? And after banning it, how long until we jail people for reading it? Do the book-burnings come before or after that?
Censorship is an attempt to prevent people from thinking. A thinking populace is dangerous to those that rule. Tyranny doesn't survive in an enviroment where people are taught to read, interpret and understand. To truly understand the books that usually get censored or banned, you have to develop the tools that make potential tyrants cringe.
Damn the tyrants, I'll read whatever I want.
That sounds like you favor the right of free speech over the freedom of reproductive rights. I'm not sure, I can believe in that all. The prioritie in that statement don't seem to be my own.
I think people should be allowed to reproduce all they want and that it shouldn't be restricted. What I don't like is when people pop out tons of kids when they are young and don't have any stability in their life and then want the government to get involved to raise their kids for them because they are too busy either working 24/7 or screwing around.
People should have complete reproductive rights. People should have rights over speech and shouldn't be censored. Censorship for children should be handled by the parents. If a parent isn't around to censor their children the way the believe their child should be censored then the parents/guardians should have planned their life out better.
If you don't agree with it then we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
If you don't agree with it then we will have to agree to disagree on this issue.
Agreed.
People should have complete reproductive rights. People should have rights over speech and shouldn't be censored. Censorship for children should be handled by the parents. If a parent isn't around to censor their children the way the believe their child should be censored then the parents/guardians should have planned their life out better.
I don't know that I agree with that. I mind what I say around children because it's not my place to expose other people's children to the freedoms that mine enjoys. With mine, however, I am the one who censors what he is exposed to. That's not to say that I guard him from everything, but there are some things that are too far above his ability to understand.
Is self-censorship the same as censorship? Is surrendering your free speech in the presence of children wrong?
I don't know that I agree with that. I mind what I say around children because it's not my place to expose other people's children to the freedoms that mine enjoys. With mine, however, I am the one who censors what he is exposed to. That's not to say that I guard him from everything, but there are some things that are too far above his ability to understand.
I think that you should be able to, if you want to, speak how you wish around a friend's children. That friend in turn should have the freedom to not associate with you or just to not have their kids around you.
Is self-censorship the same as censorship? Is surrendering your free speech in the presence of children wrong?
I guess it is. No it's just called being polite.
Is self-censorship the same as censorship? Is surrendering your free speech in the presence of children wrong?
"Discretion is not censorship" and "no, but it shouldn't be forced."
Ah, but what about the chilling effect that placing things on 'restricted access' creates? It's well documented that if you have to ask for something, as opposed to just grabbing it off the shelf and proceeding to checkout, that people are less likely to access it.
As such, by making it 'restricted', you are, in many cases, discouraging access for adults and children both.
But that isn't censorship. If you aren't mature enough to purchase adult subject matter without being embarrassed, its probably best you don't. For me the main issue is whether or not it is available.
T
I think that you should be able to, if you want to, speak how you wish around a friend's children. That friend in turn should have the freedom to not associate with you or just to not have their kids around you.
I think my friends' children would kill their parents for that.
I swear that I'm the only one that actually talks to them like they're people, just a bit smaller than the rest of us. I speak pretty much normally and explain things when they ask, but there are some things that I don't go near.
As to censorship, it's a touchy subject.
I shudder every time I think about libraries and schools removing books from their shelves. When education plays second fiddle to political correctness, all of our people suffer. Without access to the things that might offend us, how do we learn from it?
I think the bolded statement hits home for me, and it's one of the main reasons why I have a problem with things such as censorship and political correctness.
I in no way think I am the smartest person in the world; I accept my mental limitations. However, with that being said, I honestly do feel that many of the younger kids who I interact with via gaming, and some of the young guys I was in charge of while in the military did have their educations stunted due to political correctness and the inability of the education system to be tough on them.
I remember vividly that I had one guy in my squad who had a tough time reading. He could only borderline read. What I mean by that is that he wasn't completely unable to read, but he had a tough enough time with it that I had to take time to help him with things and make sure he understood them instead of just being able to expect him to read instructions. I once asked how he was able to get through school, and he told me that he was passed through school because it was viewed as being "bad for self esteem" to fail a kid at the school he went to. Apparently they would hold you back, but eventually they would simply just pass you. Since I personally didn't go to that school, I can't speak to the validity of his statements, but I do know that there are some educational institutions which do now have that policy or similar policies
Free speech doesn't overrule other rights. A cemetery is there for people to mourn and grieve, and a family of a slain soldier has a right to do that. People going to the cemetery to disrupt and abuse the family during the procession should not be protected speech IMO. I think these people should be arrested. They can express their opposition to issues in another forum. I also think hate speech should not be free speech, although you would have to be careful how you define hate speech. This is just my ideas on what the spirit of the law should be, I am not familiar with the details of North American law, besides free speech being held as sacred to a high degree.
You only have freedom of speech until you start violating people rights. From what I'm hearing is the protesters at the cemetery ended up violating the rights of others.
That sounds like you favor the right of free speech over the freedom of reproductive rights. I'm not sure, I can believe in that all. The prioritie in that statement don't seem to be my own.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this one because I like you too much. Your dancing around in your birthday suit keeps me from smoking.
No he isn't saying that at all. He is saying the rest of us shouldn't be forced to accommodate people who made unwise reproduction decisions. That doesn't mean he wants to interfere with other peoples' reproductive rights.
@Idolis: I'm not entirely sure how to respond to your statements. I think a large part of that is that though you commented about a social problem, I don't see a direct link to the topic, unless you're advocating that the government should take a larger hand in the raising of children, a path that I think is very dangerous.
I think too much has been placed on the shoulders of parents and too little in the rearing of children on the shoulders of aunts, uncles, friends and the like. The government has taken onto itself to protect the welfare of the children and to a degree their education. But it is the responsibility for the rest of us to help as we can and to ensure that the children of friends, relatives and neighbors grow up to be valuable part of our society as a whole.
You only have freedom of speech until you start violating people rights. From what I'm hearing is the protesters at the cemetery ended up violating the rights of others.
In the town I lived in where this happened, no one could do anything to stop the protesters. They were protected by freedom of speech. In fact, one of the mourners almost got in trouble for threatening a protester with violence.
I think too much has been placed on the shoulders of parents and too little in the rearing of children on the shoulders of aunts, uncles, friends and the like. The government has taken onto itself to protect the welfare of the children and to a degree their education. But it is the responsibility for the rest of us to help as we can and to ensure that the children of friends, relatives and neighbors grow up to be valuable part of our society as a whole.
Why is this my responsibility? I take care of my kids and my family. Hey I am all for immediate family helping out. But life is too stressful and too busy for me to help out with the children of my neighbors and friends. And it isn't my responsibility. It is theirs.
In the town I lived in where this happened, no one could do anything to stop the protesters. They were protected by freedom of speech. In fact, one of the mourners almost got in trouble for threatening a protester with violence.
Well as long as the protesters are not violating anybodies rights then they are free to do as they please. Now if a mourner is threatening a protester with violence, and the violence is quite imminent, and then the mourner is starting to infringe upon the rights of the protesters. Especially their rights of free speech and such. What the protesters are doing is disrespectful but protesting in and of itself are not a violation of another person's rights.
Not allowing it in libraries is not preventing the information from being expressed it is determining whether or not public money should be used to make any particular piece of information easier to be accessed.
Internet in public libraries makes it very easy for people to access pornography if censors are not used. Censors remove the ease of viewing it at a library, viewers will have to find pay for the internet themselves rather than view it on my bill.
As to information on **** centers (etc.) the information can still be found out by accessing a phonebook just as easily as going to the library. It is six up and a half-dozen down. You might simultaneously make it harder to access both porn and **** centers but both can still be easily reached. In the case of porn it will be reached at someone else's expense instead of mine. In the case of **** centers a look in the phonebook will give access to numbers and people why my tax money will be already supporting in many cases. I pay for it either way and do not mind. This covers the situations where individuals do not personally have access to the internet or that of a friend or fear to use their own internet.
As to contraceptives I believe one must again go back to whose money is being spent. It is not my responsibility to spend my money to make it easier for people to learn how to do such things. Should people who belong to the Catholic Church (which is against contraception...) be forced to pay taxes to support systems which give access to contraceptives?
Wizards of the Coast limits what people say on these forums because it is theirs. People can still say what they want but not on WotC's forums. When the government takes tax dollars from the public to build a library the populace has a right t limit what is available there. That is not (unfair) censorship. People can still say whatever they want but we (society in general...) are not required to spend our money to create a place for people to say things we disagree with. Sometimes things come up that people may agree or disagree whether or not it should be included but that does not make it wrong for society to do so.
But to repeat, even if libraries have restrictions, anyone can still say whatever they want.
Free speech doesn't overrule other rights. A cemetery is there for people to mourn and grieve, and a family of a slain soldier has a right to do that. People going to the cemetery to disrupt and abuse the family during the procession should not be protected speech IMO. I think these people should be arrested. They can express their opposition to issues in another forum. I also think hate speech should not be free speech, although you would have to be careful how you define hate speech. This is just my ideas on what the spirit of the law should be, I am not familiar with the details of North American law, besides free speech being held as sacred to a high degree.
After being cornered by a group of highly disgruntled veterans before the hearse and family arrived, the protesters were very happy to see the police arrive, very happy indeed. We forcefully ejected them from the property, taking time while we marched (or dragged) them across the veteran's garden of the cemetary to give them a sound tongue-lashing and a few very pointed exclamation points delivered rather forcefully. When the police arrived, they were arrested for trespassing, we received appearance tickets for assault* and the family was none the wiser.
*the charges were dropped because none of the protesters could identify any of us. Although all of us went to the courthouse before the court date to plead guilty without bothering a judge.
But that isn't censorship. If you aren't mature enough to purchase adult subject matter without being embarrassed, its probably best you don't. For me the main issue is whether or not it is available.
In a perfect world, sure.
But that's not this world.
In this world there's a lot of social pressures, reasons why people might not want to talk about certain topics and so-on. A teenager might not want to tell a librarian that they want the filter on the computer disabled so that they can look for a GSA in their area, for fear of being labeled, and that their parents might find out (whether or not the danger is real, the fear is). Or a **** victim looking for support that doesn't want to admit to another stranger about what they've been through. With how judgmental people have proven themselves to be, why should we force people through it again?
Are these fears and anxieties always rational and logical? No necessarily. But access to information shouldn't be based on whether or not someone can overcome their personal fears and anxieties in order to ask for assistance, especially when it relates to a personal issue that the person is having a hard time dealing with already.
As I said before about filters when it was mentioned that they can be circumvented, access should not be restricted to people that can overcome built-in challenges, especially when it is unintentional.
Like I said earlier, I do think that there are things such as hate speech which should be looked down upon. However, it is my view that it is the individual's responsibility to hold themselves to a higher standard. Likewise, I feel that it is the parents' responsibility to set a good standard for their children and take care of their children. Self-responsibility is something that I feel has been lost, and it's sad to me that it is so easy for someone to make excuses for why they did something wrong in today's society. "I saw it on a video game." "I saw it in a music video." "I really didn't want to see the porn that I was watching." If you can't handle something then you should be aware of that and have the self-responsibility and self-awareness to not expose yourself to it. I know that sometimes you can't avoid things, but sometimes it seems as though people intentionally expose themselves to things they view as offensive so that they have a scapegoat to blame their problems on instead of being expected to be responsible for themselves.
I do feel that society as a whole should work to find a common ground for what is acceptable and what isn't, and I do think that everyone should do what's right to make sure that the next generation is able to succeed. However, ultimately the responsibility for those things should originally fall upon the individual. No amount of help will help someone who doesn't want to be helped or doesn't want to put forth the effort to make themselves better. Likewise, no amount of censorship will force someone who is determined to be hateful stop being hateful; that's something that they need to do for themselves. I think that if -as a society as a whole- we start to expect more from the individual that it will make the collective stronger. Overall, I feel that free speech and censorship should be a social issue and not a legal issue.
@Idolis: I'm not entirely sure how to respond to your statements. I think a large part of that is that though you commented about a social problem, I don't see a direct link to the topic, unless you're advocating that the government should take a larger hand in the raising of children, a path that I think is very dangerous.
It's not that I think the government should take a larger role but I do think it is the responsibility to make sure their society has a place for proper upbringing of children without infringing on reproductive rights. In essence what I am saying is that some parents have the means to pay for child care then everyone should.
I grew up poor and my mom worked two jobs to raise me and brother after my dad lost his at a shipyard and they got divorced. Their was no way she could have been capable of affording childcare so I watched my brother while she worked.
It was my job to look after him in an environment where all kids were in the same situation as we were and some were more inclined toward the violent and pornographic. We both went to school in schools where other kids did whatever they wanted to because their parents were unable to watch them and make sure they were supervised
It relates to censorship because if one kid got his hands on R rated movie rented or bought by their parent's for their parent's entertainment then all the kids saw it. That wouldn't have happened had those children had payed for childcare like those in a higher class.
I am making an agruement that would allow for freedom of speech and keep kids from sources of violence and pornography all together.
Edited:Because I put the wrong word in there. I meant more inclined and not less.
Internet in public libraries makes it very easy for people to access pornography if censors are not used. Censors remove the ease of viewing it at a library, viewers will have to find pay for the internet themselves rather than view it on my bill.
As I have worked in a library (Specifically the New Mexico Tech Skeen Library in Socorro, New Mexico) for the last five years and have had to deal with this, I thought I should give a bit of perspective and information about this.
My experience
My library has a number of readily accessible machines that are mostly unfiltered (they block myspace. Why the director chose to block myspace specifically and nothing else, I don't know. But that is the only thing blocked). We also have an interent use policy on what people are and aren't allowed to do. Viewing pornographic materials is on the list of 'not allowed'.
In the last year I have had to ask a patron to stop viewing pornographic material once. Now admitedly, I'm the evening and weekend supervisor so the number of people doing that sort of thing in the morning could be higher, but from talking to my boss and the other staff members my experience isn't out of the ordinary.
I'm not saying that porn-viewing at libraries isn't a problem, just that, in my own experience, it's not a major one and tends to be blown out of proportion, and is much more easily solved by arranging workspaces and having a regular staff presence then technical solutions.
In the last year I have had to ask a patron to stop viewing pornographic material once. Now admitedly, I'm the evening and weekend supervisor so the number of people doing that sort of thing in the morning could be higher, but from talking to my boss and the other staff members my experience isn't out of the ordinary.
I'm not saying that porn-viewing at libraries isn't a problem, just that, in my own experience, it's not a major one and tends to be blown out of proportion, and is much more easily solved by arranging workspaces and having a regular staff presence then technical solutions.
As far as public computers are concerned, online censorship as a whole is absurd, and if you are ever in need of bypassing filters, I would suggest proxy.org as a solution to bypassing filters to get at content, or if you are a geek like me, bring your own copy of firefox on a USB that you can then use without having to worry about any kind of filtering. ;)
Tiresias, you are awesome. I can't believe I never thought of Firefox on a USB. I shall now be able to bypass that damn blocker at school! Yay!
ShowIt's not that I think the government should take a larger role but I do think it is the responsibility to make sure their society has a place for proper upbringing of children without infringing on reproductive rights. In essence what I am saying is that some parents have the means to pay for child care then everyone should.
I grew up poor and my mom worked two jobs to raise me and brother after my dad lost his at a shipyard and they got divorced. Their was no way she could have been capable of affording childcare so I watched my brother while she worked.
It was my job to look after him in an environment where all kids were in the same situation as we were and some were more inclined toward the violent and pornographic. We both went to school in schools where other kids did whatever they wanted to because their parents were unable to watch them and make sure they were supervised
It relates to censorship because if one kid got his hands on R rated movie rented or bought by their parent's for their parent's entertainment then all the kids saw it. That wouldn't have happened had those children had payed for childcare like those in a higher class.
I am making an agruement that would allow for freedom of speech and keep kids from sources of violence and pornography all together.
Edited:Because I put the wrong word in there. I meant more inclined and not less.
My opinion was what I said it was. I do not expect anyone to adopt my opinion and will not make the assumption that I can convince them if I make a good arguement.
I respect everyone else's opinion, especially yours, and will not argue the case.
Huntington mentioned responsibility, and I think that after looking over what has been said, I feel that the deeper issue beyond Free Speech and Censorship is the issue of Self-Responsibility. It's also what I think I was trying to touch on earlier, but couldn't quite get to where I was going.
Taking responsibility for your own actions has gone the way of common decency and common sense. People have discovered it's easier to blame others rather than accept that they may be at fault for anything. To put it in terms that we should all be able to understand, you're looking for paladin virtue in a world full of rogues.
I respect everyone else's opinion, especially yours, and will not argue the case.
Understood.
I do feel that society as a whole should work to find a common ground for what is acceptable and what isn't, and I do think that everyone should do what's right to make sure that the next generation is able to succeed.
Never gonna happen. America is, quite simply, too big, with too many cultures scattered around, too much variety, too much of a melting pot. In most places they have obscenity laws that are pretty vaguely described which hinge on the "standards of the community". This has led, in the past, to quite a few free speech cases, most of which come down to the supreme court that wound up with jurisdiction saying "oh frack, what the heck do we do with this case?"
Just as a quick seed: I very rarely use the 'report' button on posts because I believe it helps create a chilling effect on free speech. That is, with the way moderation works here you're never quite sure what they moderators are unhappy about or what they'll decide is crossing the line and edit out (or just close the thread), and I would rather hear people's opinions and thoughts, however distasteful, then have the conversation shut down. As such, I almost never report.
On a privately owned site such as this there is no guarantee of free speech. We are mere guests here on this site and as such we, with every single post, agree to abide by the Rules & Regulations/Code of Conduct. If that includes a restriction of speech then so be it. None of us have any right to visit this privately owned site. Being able to post here is a privelage granted to us by the owners and enforced by the moderators. As such I think that people have the obligation to use the Report Abuse button to report posts that are in violation of the Rules & Regulations/Code of Conduct. This is a community and we should all be striving to maintain the standard put forth by the owners.
As for computers at libraries, that is a sticky wicket. On the one hand I do not think that computers maintained/owned by a public library should have filters, but that does not mean that I think that just anyone should be able to hop onto a computer to surf porn, especially if there might be children nearby. Parents should have some expectation of "protection" of what their children are exposed to at a library. I also have mixed feelings about setting up adult only computer labs. No library should be subjected to perverts masturbating in a public library! As I said, it is a sticky wicket and I think that community standards should play a part in the rules governing the use of computers in a library.
In most places they have obscenity laws that are pretty vaguely described which hinge on the "standards of the community". This has led, in the past, to quite a few free speech cases, most of which come down to the supreme court that wound up with jurisdiction saying "oh frack, what the heck do we do with this case?"
In a perfect world, they toss the questionable law and make the legislature come up with something better. Considering the level of quality in the legislature of late*, that is, quite probably, impossible.
The "standards of the community" is too vague to be included in the wording of a law. Once a case of that nature goes beyond the locality in which it was brought before the courts, it should be tossed out due to variation in the "standards of the community" in which the case is being reviewed.
*I'm referring to the Iowa legislature. I'm perfectly content with the bulk of the esteemed men and women on the national level, but we have some real nutjobs on the state level here.
That you're against censorship, but find nothing wrong with a parent restricting what a child can do or see...when that's a form of censorship. Either you were saying you are against creative censorship but not user-end censorship, or you're contradicting yourself.
Technically, parents controlling what their children are exposed to is a form of censorship. But, minors are not entitled to all the rights and privelages that an adult is entitled to. Because children are incapable of making many "rational" and/or "correct" decisions for themselves that duty falls upon the parents. As such the parents have the duty to control what their children are exposed to within their own home. I also feel that society has an obligation to set certain standards for children in general within the community/country (such as movie ratings).
In a perfect world, sure.
But that's not this world.
In this world there's a lot of social pressures, reasons why people might not want to talk about certain topics and so-on. A teenager might not want to tell a librarian that they want the filter on the computer disabled so that they can look for a GSA in their area, for fear of being labeled, and that their parents might find out (whether or not the danger is real, the fear is). Or a **** victim looking for support that doesn't want to admit to another stranger about what they've been through. With how judgmental people have proven themselves to be, why should we force people through it again?
Are these fears and anxieties always rational and logical? No necessarily. But access to information shouldn't be based on whether or not someone can overcome their personal fears and anxieties in order to ask for assistance, especially when it relates to a personal issue that the person is having a hard time dealing with already.
.
I don't see this as a problem. If you are anxious about walking into the back room of a book store to get your pornography, then you are pretty thin skinned. Such barriers don't keep me from getting porn. Restricting access to people of the age of majority to certain kinds of material is important, and acceptable. If it makes some people uncomfortable when they purchase such items, who cares. Its worth it. Its also important because you don't want to put highly sexual images right there at the front counter where everyone is going to be forced to see them. I love watching strippers, but I don't expect to have them in the comfort of my booth at McDonalds. If I want to view something like that, I need to go to a building with restricted access. If I want to buy a dirty magazine, I either have to ask the guy at the counter, or go to the back room. If another person isn't man enough to that to get his fix, it isn't society's problem.
I think people should be allowed to reproduce all they want and that it shouldn't be restricted.
I do not agree with this at all. This planet does not have unlimited resources. Overpopulation is a legitimate long-tern concern for this planet. I do not know the answer as to how to restrict population growth, but I do feel that unrestricted reproduction is a looming major problem for the world.
In this world there's a lot of social pressures, reasons why people might not want to talk about certain topics and so-on. A teenager might not want to tell a librarian that they want the filter on the computer disabled so that they can look for a GSA in their area, for fear of being labeled, and that their parents might find out (whether or not the danger is real, the fear is). Or a **** victim looking for support that doesn't want to admit to another stranger about what they've been through. With how judgmental people have proven themselves to be, why should we force people through it again?.
Even in these sorts of cases, the information is available at public health centers and places that don't include a public library. The filters are there for good reason: these are public libraries. It is a simple matter to get the filters disabled to see acceptable sites. Honestly, the people afraid of being judged, really need to get over it. The filters, as imperfect as they are, are needed in work environments and public places like schools and libraries. Otherwise you would have kids able to view some really dark pornography on the internet.
I do not agree with this at all. This planet does not have unlimited resources. Overpopulation is a legitimate long-tern concern for this planet. I do not know the answer as to how to restrict population growth, but I do feel that unrestricted reproduction is a looming major problem for the world.
The better solution is education and awareness. Limiting peoples' reproduction, is a violation of their human rights. Anyways, the world works these things out naturally. If a population size is unsustainable...well that kind of takes care of itself doesn't it? Either way, in a place like America with our available land and resources, people only having 2.5 kids, overpopulation isn't ever going to be a problem.
Limiting peoples' reproduction, is a violation of their human rights.
I disagree with this. Human rights is a concept created by humans. As such it can be changed by humans. The concept of human rights also entails a certain level of obligations. If those obligations are not met by people then there needs to be a form of "punishment."
I do agree with your comments about better education, though. However there are those in the who keep arguing that even willingly practicing birth control is somehow wrong.
As for the U.S. never running out of food, that is a subjective statement. Who knows what environmental disasters might loom in the future, and if it becomes a crisis for parts of the rest of the world it could have an impact on us. World stability (or rather the lack thereof) could have serious negative conotations for America.
I disagree with this. Human rights is a concept created by humans. As such it can be changed by humans. The concept of human rights also entails a certain level of obligations. If those obligations are not met by people then there needs to be a form of "punishment."
I do agree with your comments about better education, though. However there are those in the who keep arguing that even willingly practicing birth control is somehow wrong.
As for the U.S. never running out of food, that is a subjective statement. Who knows what environmental disasters might loom in the future, and if it becomes a crisis for parts of the rest of the world it could have an impact on us. World stability (or rather the lack thereof) could have serious negative conotations for America.
So you don't believe in universal human rights, apparently taking the Might makes right approach. Fair enough. I believe in them. Believe they should be defended and they are good because they make for a better world. The same argument you are making now was and is used to defend the germans in the 3rd Reich. And that moment in history is why the UN made the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the first place. This doesn't mean I believe that humans create human rights; but that we can discover them and agree to enforce them. By the way I am not saying overpopulation is never a problem anywhere. I am saying it needs to be dealt with humanely. Telling people how many babies they can have is a serious violation of their autonomy.
No it isn't a subjective statement. It is an objective statement based on the facts of today. If the facts change, then so must the conclusion. But that doesn't make the statement subjective. If anything, environmental disaster would probably increase food supply long term in North America. Unless global warming creates more arid conditions.
Unless everyone has the right to a process of Government where every Act of Government, Law, Constitution, and Executive requires the direct and regular approval of everyone, you have no rights.
yes I do. I have the right to free speech, to vote, to own property, etc. And my government protects these rights.
Not for long in the US....
Not with this administration...
Oh no you didnt?!!?Not for long in the US....
Not with this administration...
You have been watching too much Glen Beck. If anything, my "freedoms" will be better protected by an administration without Dick Cheney.
....Oh yes I did.
Some advice...
stay away from the Obama kool-aid...
I never drank the obama cool aid. I think he will be a 1 term president. I wanted Hilary to win. But that doesn't mean I swallow the paranoid fantasy of people like beck and rush that he is going to take away our freedoms. We lost more freedom under bush than any president in recent history. Obama is mostly going to be doing damage control. And before you worry about him taking your guns, Obama knows there are over 10,000 militia members throughout the country...he would have to be monumentally stupid to try that. Especially given the number of people surging into the militias since his election.
And I don't particularly care for Beck... my man is Rush!
What was that about cool aid?
You have got to be kiddin!
Obama has done more to destroy this country in so little time, it makes my head spin!
Don't you realize our gov't is now made up of rabble rousers, "community organizers" (rabble rousers), socialists, communists, and people that are incredibly under-qualified to hold any position of power?!
Bush ruined this country by forcing us into an expensive war and overspending on defense and homeland security.
This is simply not the case. Obama has appoointed many qualified people. Unlike Bush who vetted appointees based on their religious beliefs. And the government is not made up of socialists and communists. You got to understand men like Rush and Beck, when they tell you the socialists and communists are coming, they don't even know what those terms really mean.
And I have no problem with community organizers.
Hey guys, leave the politics out, m-kay? The current line of discussion will get the thread locked. Take it to PMs - if you're men enough. ;) :P
He brought it up. I was just talking about human rights in general. But I should be allowed to defend myself if someone accuses me of drinking the obama cool aid.
He brought it up. I was just talking about human rights in general. But I should be allowed to defend myself if someone accuses me of drinking the obama cool aid.
Two wrongs make a right, eh? Either that or the classic "he started it!" defense. Very nice. Neither are becoming of the toddlers that generally use them and less so of people pretending to engage in intelligent discourse.
Two wrongs make a right, eh? Either that or the classic "he started it!" defense. Very nice. Neither are becoming of the toddlers that generally use them and less so of people pretending to engage in intelligent discourse.
Oh no you didn't?!!?
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have. The juvenile nature of political screaming matches has a bad effect on me, I guess. I've said my peace now, though. Let the ****er get locked. Probably a page or two away.
Yeah, I probably shouldn't have. The juvenile nature of political screaming matches has a bad effect on me, I guess. I've said my peace now, though. Let the ****er get locked. Probably a page or two away.
It has that effect on me too... luckily you said it before I had the chance.
I am speechless.
Right, Obama vets his people by who doesn't pay their taxes!
And that expensive war and spending on defense has probably saved thousands of innocent American lives and preventing those mad Islamic fascist terrorists from striking us.
Obama is redistributing wealth... and that is communism/socialism. Obama is punishing those who pay their bills and giving a free ride to those who can't/won't.
You sir, are naive and blind.
I agree we needed to beef up the FBI and Homeland Security. no problem there. But Iraq created terrorists. It didn't remove terrorists as a threat. If anything, Iraq made the Global Jihad Movement stronger. Afghanistan was the war that weakened it. Honestly Bush should have focused on targeting Al Qaeda affliliates rather than Saddam Hussein. I know Arabic. I have been to the middle east, and I used to work in counter terrorism. Trust me. The Iraq war, had nothing to do with stopping terrorism. Its goal of spreading democracy accross the middle east, to reduce terrorism, was flawed, and never succeeded anyways.
That is not communism. Communism is when the public owns the means of production through the government. Obama has not redistributed any wealth. We have some European style, democratic socialist programs in the US. But we have had them for years. This isn't the sort of menacing red threat Rush makes it out to be.
Similarly, I do not believe that library computers (whether that's K-12 school, public, or academic library) should have filtering software because it blocks off too many legitimate resources, and even if a librarian can disable it, having to request that creates a chilling effect on what people can access.
I disagree, but for a different reason than censorship. I believe that the school has a right to dictate how their equipment is used, and what it is used for.
I don't think the school does have a right to STOP or censor anything, but by all means they have the right to choose to not facilitate others in their "endeavors", most especially without any controls or boundaries.
If you want to surf for porn on your own computer, that is fine, but that is school property and they have every right to make sure it is used in the manner that was intended.
I take the first amendment VERY seriously and I hold it most dear and as the most important thing this country has, but I also have a great respect for the right to privacy.
What people forget is that free speech is NOT limited to just the right to say anything you want. It also is the right to be able to ignore anything you want, and the right to not be forced to facilitate those you do not agree with.
I can see an argument coming from the school being a government organization, which should not necessarily have the right to pick and choose the material it considers good or bad, but also stop and think about the fact that the internet is hazardous if you are not careful. Should the school be forced to deal with the barrage of spyware and viruses they would get if the computers visited the sites? Not to mention that if underage people visit those sites, it is possible they could be breaking other sites policies, not to mention some site may have illegal and lawbreaking content. Should schools not be allowed to make sure their equipment is used illegally?
So you don't believe in universal human rights, apparently taking the Might makes right approach. Fair enough. I believe in them. Believe they should be defended and they are good because they make for a better world. The same argument you are making now was and is used to defend the germans in the 3rd Reich. And that moment in history is why the UN made the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the first place. This doesn't mean I believe that humans create human rights; but that we can discover them and agree to enforce them. By the way I am not saying overpopulation is never a problem anywhere. I am saying it needs to be dealt with humanely. Telling people how many babies they can have is a serious violation of their autonomy.
No it isn't a subjective statement. It is an objective statement based on the facts of today. If the facts change, then so must the conclusion. But that doesn't make the statement subjective. If anything, environmental disaster would probably increase food supply long term in North America. Unless global warming creates more arid conditions.
I did not say that I am against universal human rights or that I support the "might makes right" line of thought. I merely said that the concept of human rights was created by humans and that it is therefore subject to change. I do not beleive that there are inate human rights that we have discovered or will discover. I feel that it is purely a human invention. That does not mean that I disagree with them! But, with rights come obligations, and as I said before if those obligations are not met then there needs to be punishment. And if the punishment entails curtailing some human rights then theoretically I am for that. (Theoretically because there are many possible punishments, some good, some evil, and there are evil and good people out there who could abuse/misuse the power entrusted to them.)
As for the reproductive rights, I do not have any problem with telling people how many babies they can have. Depending on how it was done I do not think that it would be inhumane to put limits on the number of babies allowed. In severely over-populated or severely poor areas of the world maybe people should not be allowed to reproduce whenever they want. I do not know if you remember the Ethiopian drought from the 80's, but there were images of mothers who, during the drought, kept getting pregnant every single year. There were many pictures of a family with 5 or 6 kids of varying ages and the mother had a dying newborn baby in her arms. In such a situation someone needs to step in and tell these people to stop making babies. I am not saying that anyone should have been sterilized, but they obviously lacked the education to come to the conclusion on their own that when they could not feed themselves or the children that they already had that they must not make even more babies.
And while I feel that better education could be an ideal solution, it is also a somewhat imperfect solution because it relies on the acceptance that people want to be better educated or that the education will have any effect on some people. Not everyone is willing to be educated, especially when education goes against long standing cultural/societaly beliefs. Toss in some religious beliefs into the mix and it makes better education evern harder to take root with some people. We need to try to better educated people, but until better education takes root in more places I feel that in some places there needs to be limits imposed on people. The problem, though, is the standards and implementation of such limits. Again, it is a complicated issue and while I do have some very strong opinions on the subject I know that I do not have the answers.
In regards to the food sub-topic, I see it as a subjective answer, but only because I also do not look at it exclusively as a "as it stands today" type of a situation. I look at it long term with all the possible variables being ever present. I think that we are looking at the same "viewpoint" on this topic but from different sides of the wheat field.
I am no longer talking politics on this thread.
I can bang my head against the wall at home...
Great I accept your concession of defeat. I win the political argument. hup hup huzzah!:P
(they block myspace. Why the director chose to block myspace specifically and nothing else, I don't know. But that is the only thing blocked).
Myspace has one of the most horrid track records of any site in the world. First off, I am sure it has been used by child predators. Second, people spend a sick amount of time on myspace. It actually became a problem for several companies that had internet access. Their employees would stop working anf visit myspace all day. Third, the sites can have a lot of bandwidth sucking videos and sound, and people can spend all day surfing them over and over. (This is a reason I would also consider banning youtube, but youtube actually has content that would be relevant for research, whereas myspace is nothing but solicitation)