Warp wrote:
> out that what is being censored is actually not something that can legally
> be censored, chances are high that they will make a ruckus about it. (This
> has actually happened.)

Sure. Another way to censor folks is to just not resolve the domain name, at 
which point you don't even find out the stuff is there, because it doesn't 
wind up in google, etc.

The problem with making it secret is that someone has to stumble on it, make 
the ruckus, get the censorship reversed, and then repeat for each improperly 
censored site.  If the list is public, the interested public can go through 
the list and say "Hey, why is Joe's Pizza on that list?" If there's a 
handful of sites on the list "by mistake", that's quite different from 30% 
of the sites being there because some politician didn't want the 
competition, and there's no way to tell the difference if the list is 
secret.  Especially if they then go pass laws saying things like the 
censored site's owner isn't allowed to raise a ruckus.

>   The major problem is that once the censorship system is up, the threshold
> of expanding the censorship law to cover more things is significantly lowered.
> It will start with things that most people agree are "bad" (such as racism),
> and go from there to things that the government doesn't like (such as
> critique of major religions).

Fully agreed. But at least if the list is public, those of minority 
religions can point out they're being censored.

I.e., it's the same reason our court houses are open to the public. If 
you're doing something wrong in secret, there's much more possibility for 
abuse than if you're doing something wrong in public, even *if* the laws 
allow for you to be doing evil legally.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message