[ NNSquad ] Re: Brits' Failed Heavy Metal Censorship AttemptDisrupts Wikipedia Edits

[Barry Gold <bgold@matrix-consultants.com>]

Don Bowman wrote:
> I'm not sure David's indignation is aimed in the correct direction.
>
> The root problem here is not the ISP's, who have little desire
> to get involved in this Sisyphean task. They take heat from their
> customers, from the press, from people like you. However, the censorship
> request comes from other directions, and that is where the focus
> should be placed. The special interest groups who drive the FCC
> to require a 'no-porn-internet' 
> (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2008/12/fcc_to_propose_free_n
> o-porn_in.html?nav=rss_blog)
> who cause the state AG's to drive content filtering, those
> groups are the issue.
>
> We didn't blame libraries for book burning people bent on censorship, 
> why should we blame ISP's for right-wing special interest groups
> forcing legislation on them?
>   

Blame is irrelevant.  Just as the right-wing groups pressure the ISPs to 
filter the internet, we need to keep up the pressure for them to keep 
the internet open.  Whenever an ISP caves in to the likes of Andrew 
Cuomo and drops Usenet, we need to do our best to shame them into 
reversing that.  When British ISPs put a stupid filter in, which 
interferes with the functions of a major site like Wikipedia, we need to 
point out -- loudly -- that it doesn't work (and _also_ that the album 
cover in question antedates the draconian anti-CP laws and hence 
shouldn't be censored).

As for Martin's "porn-free internet", it sounds like a bonanza for M2Z 
networks.  The filtering won't work, but M2Z gets a bunch of bandwidth 
for free. (Also I suspect that the deal won't pass constitutional 
muster; this is government censorship on content, and I would expect 
SCOTUS to overturn it, especially after P.E. Obama gets to appoint a 
couple of justices.)