>>   The only possible answer to this question is that they actually know 
>> the
>
> Agree with everything except the "only" bit.
>
> Never underestimate stupidity.

Or just plain lack of resources.

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >>   The only possible answer to this question is that they actually know 
> >> the
> >
> > Agree with everything except the "only" bit.
> >
> > Never underestimate stupidity.

> Or just plain lack of resources.

  What worries me is that they are doing it with impunity.

  There have been several cases where websites which contain absolutely
nothing even remotely related to porn have ended in the censorship list.
The consequences of this illegal censorship? Absolutely nothing. Not even
an official reprimand or anything. Just nothing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  What worries me is that they are doing it with impunity.
>
>  There have been several cases where websites which contain absolutely
> nothing even remotely related to porn have ended in the censorship list.

I don't know how it works in Finland, but in the UK, for such minor illegal 
activities by the government you would usually write to your local MP. 
Things like police acting in an illegal way to catch speeding motorists etc 
quite commonly are handled this way.  Your local MP can then take things 
further on your behalf, if they don't then you can vote for a different one 
next time, or try to get yourself voted in.

As for the actual technicalities of the censorship list, why can't they just 
have a website with a "please check this website because I think it's 
actually 100% legal" box?  It would then get put in a list for some real 
person to check.  Again, maybe they just don't have the resources to do 
this, and until some court demands them to I doubt they have much incentive 
to implement it.

Post a reply to this message