The Last Gasps Of Free Speech: Goodbye Internet, page 1

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
Tiered pricing makes sense, who people who use service heavily or consume extra bandwidth should pay more than light users.
As far as censorship goes, there are a lot of websites talking trash and spreading garbage that should be shut down. Face it, most websites do not serve any real purpose other than gossip value.

Well that was just a scary post, don't you understand the importance of net neutrality? Imagine for a second that you find something out, something important, corruption maybe. You post this on your website, it gets lots and lots of hits, ends up on the top of the Digg website. You wouldn't be able to afford to keep it online and so that story disappears very quickly. On top of that, your website would load a lot slower than websites like Amazon that can afford the costs. No doubt lots of people visiting your site would get the 404 error.

Net neutrality is very important. As for your ideas on censorship, free speech means you can say whatever you wish as long as you aren't inciting violence. Some people love gossip magazines, should we also ban these? Be very careful about censorship, once you start you cannot stop.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply posted on 14-4-2009 @ 06:56 PM by secretagent woooman

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I am a reporter and know far more about the neccesity of "neutrality" than most readers on this site. I also have seen just how destructive libel and gossip on the web is and how it pervades reality to the point that people can't distinguish fact from fiction. Ever read most of the posts on this site all the way through? My only surprise is that more people on here do NOT get harassed by the government for the nonsense they write.

Sorry but a vast amount of websites serve no purposes other than gossip and self promotion, including a hell of a lot of news sites. The Internet was kept out of the general public's hands for many years exactly to prevent what it has become and technically, the government is well within rights to rescind it since its actual purpose was military/government interfacing. The people who argue against "censorship" usually are people hiding behind a computer intentionally writing false or exploitative garbage to stir crap up.

reply posted on 14-4-2009 @ 07:01 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
Sorry but a vast amount of websites serve no purposes other than gossip and self promotion, including a hell of a lot of news sites. The Internet was kept out of the general public's hands for many years exactly to prevent what it has become and technically, the government is well within rights to rescind it since its actual purpose was military/government interfacing. The people who argue against "censorship" usually are people hiding behind a computer intentionally writing false or exploitative garbage to stir crap up.

Well that's a typical reporter thing to say isn't it, when someone disagrees you attack their motives and insinuate things. So generally people arguing against censorship are writing lies? What world do you live in? So hey maybe we should just censor everything, have government only news channels and accept whatever they say. I mean the government would never abuse such a thing right?

You're a reporter? I fear for our media if you belong to it. Free speech means exactly that, the ability to say whatever you wish, whenever you want. Without it you end up like all the past communist states that have existed.

reply posted on 14-4-2009 @ 07:34 PM by Fremd

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I question how much you know about the Internets structure. I worked in that industry and i can tell you right now, cutting it off in a country isn't that hard. Just take a look at China, only the most experienced of hackers can get around that system and in the end the Chinese government could just stop all incoming and outgoing transmissions that were hard wired.

I question how much you think you know.
Cutting off internet to the united states isnt as simple as flipping a switch.

And it's "easy" in China because it was restricted before it ever took off.

You put the hardware in palce before the thing starts to grow, and your restrictions can grow with the infrastructure.

Not the case in the USA.

There's too much there.

The internet is not a "Place" it's an idea....a name given to an intangible realm that is nothing more than an imaginary world created by a bunch of computers linked together.

So....sorry....not going to happen.

Well that's a typical reporter thing to say isn't it, when someone disagrees you attack their motives and insinuate things.

Hello Mr. Kettle.
Meet your new friend, Pot

[edit on 14-4-2009 by Fremd]

reply posted on 14-4-2009 @ 08:10 PM by Wehali

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
Tiered pricing makes sense, who people who use service heavily or consume extra bandwidth should pay more than light users.
As far as censorship goes, there are a lot of websites talking trash and spreading garbage that should be shut down. Face it, most websites do not serve any real purpose other than gossip value.

What you're saying is against the right of free speech. It's because of
opinions like yours that the American government can get away with
what they are doing. Americans should strike nationally and force the
government to stand down and a new government system be created,
where corruption and pursuits such as global domination can not be
worked so easily.

The American people have the power to completely rip down their
corrupted and evil government, they're just too lazy and afraid to do
it. They should take an example of the French people, at least they're
not too lazy, ignorant and scared to march against their government.
As a result, France is one of the best countries in the world to live in,
while even Cubans get better medical health care than the richest of
Americans.

I'm sorry, but I wouldn't want you working for any of my country's
magazines, news papers or news channels. You don't seem to grasp
even the basics of real journalism, in which free speech and neutrality
are of vital importance.

[edit on (14/4/09) by Wehali]

reply posted on 14-4-2009 @ 08:17 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Fremd

I question how much you think you know.
Cutting off internet to the united states isnt as simple as flipping a switch.

I worked in the industry, i know that it wouldn't be incredibly easy and i'm not talking about a master switch or any other kind of nonsense like that. I'm talking about shutting down the ISP's, if your modem has nothing to connect to, no routers to direct the traffic, no switches, no internet backbones then your connection won't go anywhere. Remember that the internets connectivity in a country is held by a few powerful corporations and some government facilities.

The fact that the USA is talking about giving the government powers to shut the internet down in the event of a cyber attack should by it's very nature show that it is possible. Do you think they would suggest such a thing if they couldn't' do it?

reply posted on 14-4-2009 @ 08:17 PM by Wehali

reply to post by Fremd

Like I said, they're not planning on controlling the internet as it is now,
because as you said that is not possible. They plan to destroy the current
internet system, and replace it with a system that works on a central
modem of some kind, a mega system, through which they then can really
control all content, all internet access, all websites, etc.

reply posted on 14-4-2009 @ 08:21 PM by ravenshadow13

I don't believe that they can destroy the internet in order to rebuild it. I just don't see them saying "Hey, 6 months without internet. Go."

Too many business are reliant upon the internet. I think it could make the economic system even worse. Even if every website needs to be triple checked and loaded with sensors that make it super slow, it would slow internet commerce and communication necessary for companies to function.

Look at all of the "paperless" offers from anything from credit and insurance companies to cell phone plans. If the internet were to be shut off or slowed completely or changed, they would all freeze up. Big time.

reply posted on 14-4-2009 @ 08:33 PM by PrisonerOfSociety

Worse case scenario, we'll just end up using private VPN's, TOR's.

In fact, it may be good idea to get rid of central ISP's and have households connect to street networks, where each house facilitates data lines autonomously.

Fibre optics is the next internet revolution; that coupled with the advent of quantum computing will ensure data integrity, but yes, i question if TPTB will put a kill switch in the supply line somewhere!

reply posted on 14-4-2009 @ 09:06 PM by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Worse case scenario, we'll just end up using private VPN's, TOR's.

Those both still use the same structure that the ISP's rely upon. The government is talking about shutting down the net in an emergency, i'm sure they've thought beyond just closing down the ISP's many people use. They will turn off all the big switches and routers and physically stop access to the backbones. That way nothing will work to get your modem to connect to anything.

Originally posted by PrisonerOfSociety
Fibre optics is the next internet revolution; that coupled with the advent of quantum computing will ensure data integrity, but yes, i question if TPTB will put a kill switch in the supply line somewhere!

Erm what? Fibre optics are already used.

reply posted on 14-4-2009 @ 11:57 PM by SGTChas

Originally posted by secretagent woooman
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I am a reporter and know far more about the neccesity of "neutrality" than most readers on this site. I also have seen just how destructive libel and gossip on the web is and how it pervades reality to the point that people can't distinguish fact from fiction... My only surprise is that more people on here do NOT get harassed by the government for the nonsense they write.

Sorry but a vast amount of websites serve no purposes other than gossip and self promotion, including a hell of a lot of news sites. The Internet was kept out of the general public's hands for many years exactly to prevent what it has become and technically, the government is well within rights to rescind it... The people who argue against "censorship" usually are people hiding behind a computer intentionally writing false or exploitative garbage to stir crap up.

Ah, a member of the vanguard of the First Amendment and purveyor of information to the people to shed light on the dark deeds of the elected in guarding against tyranny; the enlightened corner stone of our Republic! Endeavoring to descend to the level of the masses to anoint us with jewels of wisdom, for which we humbly thank her loftiness. Even still, perhaps she might show forbearance by way of answering a few questions.

To wit, could she bless us with examples of her “… only surprise is that more people on here do NOT get harassed by the government for the nonsense they write.” In particular, ‘which’ respondents having written ‘what’ does she think the government should target for harassment? Then might she also enlighten us with the limits to free speech she thinks should be imposed? Perhaps, by so doing, she might even spare us the retribution so richly deserved by any who would dare practice free speech in our newly enlightened nation of the politically correct.

While saving us from ourselves, could she also tell us what she thinks of these other evil practitioners of ‘free speech’ and what they had to say on the subject? Please do as we know that ‘you are the wise, and wisdom dies with you.’

"GUILT only dreads Liberty of Speech, which drags it out of its lurking Holes, and exposes its Deformity and Horror to Day-light." Horatius, Valerius,

Oh, the dread of using such crass language, perhaps the above quote qualifies for the “destructive libel” she mentioned; any thoughts?

"That Men ought to speak well of their Governours is true, while their Governours deserve to be well spoken of; but to do publick Mischief, without hearing of it, is only the Prerogative and Felicity of Tyranny: A free People will be shewing that they are so, by their Freedom of Speech." Benjamin Franklin

Please forgive my having quoted one of those terrible dead white reactionary founding fathers; never would I want to be guilty of the “gossip” that so horrifies the enlightened, I merely wish gain any thoughts on his obviously politically incorrect statement. How about this one:

"This sacred Privilege is so essential to free Governments, that the Security of Property, and the Freedom of Speech always go together; and in those wretched Countries where a Man cannot call his Tongue his own, he can scarce call any Thing else his own. Whoever would overthrow the Liberty of a Nation, must begin by subduing the Freeness of Speech; a Thing terrible to Publick Traytors." Benjamin Franklin

Again, such libelous, nonsensical and inflammatory verbiage, perhaps we should dig up that reactionary dead white man and harass his resting place; cannot have such anti-government libelous speech being quoted in our enlightened age, the horror!

I have just one more quote and question:

“On the First Amendment: "One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others." --Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

Just what part of “… make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” do the enlightened not understand?

[edit on 4/15/2009 by SGTChas]

reply posted on 15-4-2009 @ 12:09 AM by ravenshadow13

reply to post by SGTChas

Okay, we'll be sure to call you the next time our first amendment rights and infringed upon.

Really though, like it's a great thought, and I don't think they would ever get rid of the internet either. But somehow I think they could pull it off if they REALLY wanted to. At least constitution-wise. There's enough libel on the internet to make the first amendment thing go out the window. Like, I think they could really really filter it and still do the freedom of speech thing.

reply posted on 15-4-2009 @ 12:18 AM by SGTChas

reply to post by ravenshadow13

Provable libel is an actionable offense in civil court. To use examples of the misdeeds of others in the attempt to abridge the rights of the majority, or minority, is the tactic of tyrants. Freedom comes with personal responsibility; something that no court can legislate, only punish those that lack it; slaves need the courts to legislate what should be natural in a civil society.

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^