 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:52:26 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocain freeservecouk> wrote:
>Bloody Scotland making things complicated ;-)
Welcome to your gory bed
Chains or victory
:)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Stephen" <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote in message
news:vr86r3t17t1rlrcg6cdu0925vca1p4ni5t@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:57:52 -0000, "Phil Cook"
> <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >>
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Finnish_internet_censorship_critic_blacklisted
> >>
http://www.effi.org/julkaisut/tiedotteet/lehdistotiedote-2008-02-12-en.html
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7240234.stm
> How will that tie in with "plan to give every child internet access at
home"
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/04/publicservices.uk
Are you suggesting that piracy is the only reason, let alone a good reason,
to have internet access?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:50:11 -0700, "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:
>Are you suggesting that piracy is the only reason, let alone a good reason,
>to have internet access?
>
Should I LOL?
I'm not sure what you mean.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 06:41:24 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 06:04:15 -0500, Warp wrote:
>
>> > So finally Finland is going down the same route as China.
>> > Let's see how it escalates in the future.
>> >
>> > http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/
>> Finnish_internet_censorship_critic_blacklisted
>> > http://www.effi.org/julkaisut/tiedotteet/lehdistotiedote-2008-02-12-
>> en.html
>
>> Hmmm, blog much, Warp? <scnr>
>
> I consider this to be a concerning global phenomenon (as Finland is
> certainly not the only country which is planning on increasing
> censorship), not an event in my personal life.
Sure read like a blog entry to me. I mean, I blog about political things
here in the US as well as personal things.
But I couldn't resist the temptation to take a jab. All in fun, of
course. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Sure read like a blog entry to me. I mean, I blog about political things
> here in the US as well as personal things.
> But I couldn't resist the temptation to take a jab. All in fun, of
> course. ;)
IMO if it's something you could expect to see in a site like slashdot
or digg, it's definitely not blog-only material...
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 14:03:09 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Sure read like a blog entry to me. I mean, I blog about political
>> things here in the US as well as personal things.
>
>> But I couldn't resist the temptation to take a jab. All in fun, of
>> course. ;)
>
> IMO if it's something you could expect to see in a site like slashdot
> or digg, it's definitely not blog-only material...
Different strokes....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>
> 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.
The site has been well-known for several months. It got to the blocking
list couple of days ago, after writing the possibility for this and
creating links from the URL's it had already contained.
> 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.
He does protest - and he's clever enough to make it out loud. He writes
his letters as open ones and publishes them on the web (on unblocked
site), so basically everyone can read them.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>> The biggest problem of all: Nobody cares. The end justifies the means.
>
>> (Welcome to the US)
>
> I believe in the US they are much stricter about respecting people's
> constitutional rights than here. In the US the constitution is something
> officials *must* obey.
It would be more precise to say that officials must obey the form of the
Constitution that the courts believe to exist. Our federal government
has done and continues to do many things that contradict what the US
constitution says, and often the courts (whose members have political
leanings just like everyone else), permit those violations that are in
line with their own political notions.
And before anyone jumps in with a snide comment about Bush, I should
point out that many of these violations consist of programs and policies
that Europeans in general favor.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> 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.
Exactly, in practice that is would any human being with power would to
to the rest, the "childporn" guy just gave them the perfect excuse to
sensor him, there are several Parental control software, even modern
antiviruses comes with it, let The Net FREE! (you fukuing hypocrites
purists)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I was referring to the censurers not you scott
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
