Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News0 min ago
(Attempted) Government censorship
21 Answers
While I'm sure most of us can express distate for the messages of sympathy on the Moat facebook page would it be right for David Cameron to have it taken down (assuming he could - which he clearly can't).
Or would this just be government removing things from publication simply because a lot of people don't like what they say?
Or would this just be government removing things from publication simply because a lot of people don't like what they say?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jake-the-peg. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Facebook have responded with:
"Facebook is a place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way as they can and do in many other places.
“We believe that enabling people to have these different opinions and debate about a topic can help bring together lots of different views for a healthy discussion"
I think the expressions of support are pretty jaw-dropping (not in a good way), but at the end of the day - it's bad taste, and you can't really legislate for that.
It's right that Cameron should express his disgust, but to call for the page to be shut down is overstepping the mark.
"Facebook is a place where people can express their views and discuss things in an open way as they can and do in many other places.
“We believe that enabling people to have these different opinions and debate about a topic can help bring together lots of different views for a healthy discussion"
I think the expressions of support are pretty jaw-dropping (not in a good way), but at the end of the day - it's bad taste, and you can't really legislate for that.
It's right that Cameron should express his disgust, but to call for the page to be shut down is overstepping the mark.
i agree with jake really.
thing is though, if (like someone said on here before) it was ian brady, or peter sutcliffe say, then people would be demanding it was removed. remember all the feigned public mourning when one of the krays copped it. people are just bloody weird.
i really don;t understand the sympathy for this perosn. yes he had mental issues, and so do many many others, but not all of them decide to walk down the street and shoot indiscriminately. if he had lived, i think he would have been reviled.
thing is though, if (like someone said on here before) it was ian brady, or peter sutcliffe say, then people would be demanding it was removed. remember all the feigned public mourning when one of the krays copped it. people are just bloody weird.
i really don;t understand the sympathy for this perosn. yes he had mental issues, and so do many many others, but not all of them decide to walk down the street and shoot indiscriminately. if he had lived, i think he would have been reviled.
Yes it was such a change to see David Cameron get up in the 'House' and condemn those sick individuals that had left messages of support to this killer on Facebook.
Had it had been Brown he would have most likely said "there has not been a proper inquiry into this matter yet, so at this time I am not prepared comment any further"
Incidentally the woman that started the page on FaceBook was interviewed on late-night radio last night.
Well what can I say, "what a moron" she admitted that she had kids and in her condemnation of the police said "she would bring her kids up also not to support our police" or words to that effect.
What a typical example in support of compulsory sterilisation, methinks from what she said in the interview, Social Services will soon be knocking at her door.
Had it had been Brown he would have most likely said "there has not been a proper inquiry into this matter yet, so at this time I am not prepared comment any further"
Incidentally the woman that started the page on FaceBook was interviewed on late-night radio last night.
Well what can I say, "what a moron" she admitted that she had kids and in her condemnation of the police said "she would bring her kids up also not to support our police" or words to that effect.
What a typical example in support of compulsory sterilisation, methinks from what she said in the interview, Social Services will soon be knocking at her door.
Nice try AOG but that's not the question is it?
The quiestion is whether the government should be trying to stop people publishing things on the internet that he finds distateful.
Is he really trying to say that he should be permitted to decide what people should and should not say on-line?
Will he then look to establish controls on Google so that such distasteful opinions from abroad are not indexed - perhaps the Chinese can give him some tips.
Frankly - he's not a stupid man, he knew that facebook would quiote rightly tell him to get lost. This is just playing to the Mail readership.
So that certain people can ruffle their papers and set them down and say "quite right too" in a self-justified way.
Not that anyone on here is like that at all.
The quiestion is whether the government should be trying to stop people publishing things on the internet that he finds distateful.
Is he really trying to say that he should be permitted to decide what people should and should not say on-line?
Will he then look to establish controls on Google so that such distasteful opinions from abroad are not indexed - perhaps the Chinese can give him some tips.
Frankly - he's not a stupid man, he knew that facebook would quiote rightly tell him to get lost. This is just playing to the Mail readership.
So that certain people can ruffle their papers and set them down and say "quite right too" in a self-justified way.
Not that anyone on here is like that at all.
Luckily we live in a democracy, so like it or not you are entitled to your opnion and long may that reign.
However the PM is entitled to ask for it to be taken down, Facebook of course don't have to, the fact that it is a discgrace in evey way and in its way condones murder shoukld be enough for Facebook to act. The fcat that they don't should bring condemnation from everyone.
As for that woman I hope she never needs the police as you can be sure they know who she is now.
However the PM is entitled to ask for it to be taken down, Facebook of course don't have to, the fact that it is a discgrace in evey way and in its way condones murder shoukld be enough for Facebook to act. The fcat that they don't should bring condemnation from everyone.
As for that woman I hope she never needs the police as you can be sure they know who she is now.
'But then having said that I would still like the Government to have the powers to remove such things that amount to criminal actions, such as terrorism, mass civil unrest.....'
Oldgit - If it amounts to a criminal action, the police would be involved or are you saying that the Govt should partake in eroding our civil liberties in a growing cyber-war?
Oldgit - If it amounts to a criminal action, the police would be involved or are you saying that the Govt should partake in eroding our civil liberties in a growing cyber-war?
It's rather difficult to del with criminal things on the internet.
They could be based on a box on the floor almost anywhere in the world. A number of politicians ( I don't count Cameron amoungst them ) simply fail to grasp this.
You see ridiculous suggestions like recording the ip addresses of people doing certain things which simply underlines how little they understand.
What is remarkable is the relative scaricity of child pornography on the internet (compared with pretty much every other bizaare form) it shows that there is a degree of self censorship out there but only when there is an absolutely overwhelming cultural agreement on something
They could be based on a box on the floor almost anywhere in the world. A number of politicians ( I don't count Cameron amoungst them ) simply fail to grasp this.
You see ridiculous suggestions like recording the ip addresses of people doing certain things which simply underlines how little they understand.
What is remarkable is the relative scaricity of child pornography on the internet (compared with pretty much every other bizaare form) it shows that there is a degree of self censorship out there but only when there is an absolutely overwhelming cultural agreement on something
I so wanted to answer this yesterday but didn't have the opportunity to return to a computer.
Yes it is difficult to deal with criminal activity on the internet - hence the modern cyber-war. However taking the example of child pornography there are police units - the child protection unit which do monitor criminal activity and gather information for prosecutions within the UK. There was a case of a British paedophile who downloaded images in Canada but since the images were present on his laptop in England the question rose as to whether he had downloaded illegal material in the UK. He was prosecuted and I think his appeal was dismissed.
This is the crux of the issue - Noam Chomsky said that a person is not in favour of freedom of speech unless they accept freedom of speech for views they dislike.
Filtering for social purposes of offensive material inc gambling, illegal drugs, porn is practised in the UK I don't disagree with censoring of illegal material. But say some of the subjects mentioned by Le Marchand are censored, should not a person be given the right to decide for themselves whether they continue to access that site further? And in particular without being flagged? Isn't that a civil liberty or is that at the mercy of the Govt?
Should internet service providers restrict material or at lease provide a suitable message or argument on page of why that material is censored?
I still think it is good of Cameron to express his opinion. However if he actively demanded the site be closed that would be another matter.
Yes it is difficult to deal with criminal activity on the internet - hence the modern cyber-war. However taking the example of child pornography there are police units - the child protection unit which do monitor criminal activity and gather information for prosecutions within the UK. There was a case of a British paedophile who downloaded images in Canada but since the images were present on his laptop in England the question rose as to whether he had downloaded illegal material in the UK. He was prosecuted and I think his appeal was dismissed.
This is the crux of the issue - Noam Chomsky said that a person is not in favour of freedom of speech unless they accept freedom of speech for views they dislike.
Filtering for social purposes of offensive material inc gambling, illegal drugs, porn is practised in the UK I don't disagree with censoring of illegal material. But say some of the subjects mentioned by Le Marchand are censored, should not a person be given the right to decide for themselves whether they continue to access that site further? And in particular without being flagged? Isn't that a civil liberty or is that at the mercy of the Govt?
Should internet service providers restrict material or at lease provide a suitable message or argument on page of why that material is censored?
I still think it is good of Cameron to express his opinion. However if he actively demanded the site be closed that would be another matter.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.