Warp wrote:
> constitutional rights than here. In the US the constitution is something
> officials *must* obey. Here the constitution is little more than just a

	In theory.
		

-- 
DOS means never having to live hand-to-mouse


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:37:57 -0500, Warp wrote:

> In the US the constitution is something officials *must* obey.

Someone should tell the current government here that, because they seem 
to think they're above the law - and that includes the constitution.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>>>  The police having free control over what gets censored and what 
>>> doesn't,
>>> independently of whether censoring something is legal or not, and 
>>> without
>>> anyone watching over the process, ie. in other words the police can 
>>> break
>>> the law without consequences, is one sign of a police state.
>>>
>>>  Who watches the police so that they don't break the law in this matter?
>>> Nobody.
>>
>> Don't you have law-makers there who tell the police what to do?  If the 
>> police start doing stupid stuff (like blocking all sites outside of 
>> finland) then surely the law-makers would intervene?
>
> How does that help?  It's already well into damage by the time it gets to 
> that stage.  And governments tend to strongly favour listening to their 
> police commissioners than to the protests of people about their police.

Well vote for someone else at the next election then.  And if you say 
"they'll all do the same" then start a new political party, which if your 
thoughts are not in the minority, will do quite well I would expect.

Post a reply to this message

>> I suspect that site would have been blocked anyway no matter what its
>> contents were, but the fact that it contains heavy criticism of the very
>> organisation that decides what gets blocked, it's no wonder it's blocked. 
>> I
>> mean even if the owner protests that his site shouldn't be blocked, the
>> officials are likely to put his request to the bottom of the pile and
>> generally do all they can to make sure it stays blocked.
>
>  Welcome to a totalitarian police state?

Welcome to the real world, where people always bend the rules, nothing is 
black or white.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Welcome to the real world, where people always bend the rules, nothing is 
> black or white.

  That doesn't mean we should simply accept this bending of rules quietly.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Welcome to the real world, where people always bend the rules, nothing is
>> black or white.
>
>  That doesn't mean we should simply accept this bending of rules quietly.

Why not?  Some idiot is deliberately trying to provoke the system and then 
complains when his site gets blocked.  I have no sympathy for him.

If he really wanted to expose the system he would choose a different name 
for his website, and not link to the blocked sites directly.  He has 
deliberately done this knowing full well it is likely to get his site 
blocked, so he can then go and complain about it.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> >> Welcome to the real world, where people always bend the rules, nothing is
> >> black or white.
> >
> >  That doesn't mean we should simply accept this bending of rules quietly.

> Why not?  Some idiot is deliberately trying to provoke the system and then 
> complains when his site gets blocked.  I have no sympathy for him.

  His site is being blocked *illegally*. Blocking it is against the law.
That's the point.

  Besides, his site is not the only one which is being illegally censored.
It's just the most prominent example.

> If he really wanted to expose the system he would choose a different name 
> for his website, and not link to the blocked sites directly.  He has 
> deliberately done this knowing full well it is likely to get his site 
> blocked, so he can then go and complain about it.

  Sometimes giving an actual example is more efficient than theoretizing
about what could perhaps happen.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> Why not?  Some idiot is deliberately trying to provoke the system and 
>> then
>> complains when his site gets blocked.  I have no sympathy for him.
>
>  His site is being blocked *illegally*. Blocking it is against the law.

TO be honest, I don't think anyone is really going to listen to him or care, 
given the name of his website.

>  Besides, his site is not the only one which is being illegally censored.
> It's just the most prominent example.

Change your website name/content to some less illegal one and you won't get 
blocked.

>  Sometimes giving an actual example is more efficient than theoretizing
> about what could perhaps happen.

Of course, but his example doesn't really encourage people to protest, the 
system seems to be working pretty well, I would think that most people would 
expect a site with that name to be blocked.  If someone totally unrelated 
had been blocked, like say amazon.com or some general news website, then 
that would have been a better example to use - but I doubt any sites like 
that are actually blocked.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Change your website name/content to some less illegal one and you won't get 
> blocked.

  "Childporn" is in no way or form an illegal name. There's absolutely no
legal nor logical reason to blacklist a site with that name. Censoring
the site is illegal.

> Of course, but his example doesn't really encourage people to protest, the 
> system seems to be working pretty well, I would think that most people would 
> expect a site with that name to be blocked.

  Uh? It's a perfect example of how the system does *not* work well,
as legal sites are being wrongly blacklisted, which is illegal.

>  If someone totally unrelated 
> had been blocked, like say amazon.com or some general news website, then 
> that would have been a better example to use - but I doubt any sites like 
> that are actually blocked.

  Apparently this site has also been blocked. It's anybody's guess why:

http://www.nn.iij4u.or.jp/~nekokubo/

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  "Childporn" is in no way or form an illegal name. There's absolutely no
> legal nor logical reason to blacklist a site with that name.

I know you are just pretending to be this dumb to carry on the argument with 
me...

Post a reply to this message