Internet regulation Agenda of the Globalist

[Anonymous No.]

hahaah owow remember the ausfags here who were in denial after the first internet censhorship laws, and kept telling us that the next administration would vote this shit out because the public did not like it?


Now read this:
http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/media/media_releases/2009/115

IT'S LIKE PLANNING TO MAKE THE INTERNET READY© FOR CHILDREN-FRIENDLY USE if you know what I mean

YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING. Australia has it, UK will have, the EU is planning to, the US will follow after enough pressure and the rest of the world does not really matter.

This will be the end of your neat little moe 2D world .... 2012 could be the end of days my dear aniki.

[Anonymous No.]

Sure is /jp/ related

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914679
What? They want to take our lolis, stupid, so of course it's /jp/ related you ignorant fool

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914696
No, Ausfalia getting filtered internet has nothing to do with /j/, go be butthurt somewhere else ausfag. You're also like 2 days late to the party.

[Anonymous No.]

let's create a jp country in some island. we just need to kidnap zun, r07, a couple of drawfags and it'll be paradise.

[Anonymous No.]

I don't care.
If you take everything away from me, I'll just find something else.
Reported for /n/.

[Anonymous No.]

Sup Battlefro/n/t.

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914704
Not an ausfag but I see, discussing worldy matters that will affect all of us with underage retards who play their bullet pattern games wasn't such a good idea.

[Koma !ZoSWhgaKAI No.]

>>3914677
I have read the same shit 3 days in a row about this, Its embarrassing to even call Australia my country, Im not too worried, basically what they're doing here is filtering our internet but there's ways pass the filter at least that's what im hoping.
>The Government has always maintained there is no silver bullet solution to cyber-safety
This meaning it isn't really fool proof, but we'll see.

[Anonymous No.]

This "for the children" shit has to stop.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914720
Well if you understand that much why don't you delete this thread.

[Anonymous No.]

Good news.
No more ausfags on /jp/.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914729
you fucking idiot, don't just take that shit go riot or something

[Anonymous No.]

/jp/ - world affair

[Anonymous No.]

They best way to protect children is to keep them off the internet. Also no one cares about Australia. When the US increases the average price of games back to 80+ like in the NES era, then I'll be worried.

>>3914696
No one is taking your loli. Figs don't seem to be banned and girls will still flash you on cam for no provocation if you're into that kind of thing.

[Internet regulation Agenda of the Globalist No.]

Internet regulation Agenda of the Globalist

MORE NEWS AT SANKAKU COMPLEXXXXĄĄĄ!!!!!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914732
>This "for the children" shit has to stop.
No, it's got to increase. If the kids grow up butthurt that they can't see anything but what their parents force them to see, they'll be more willing to vote for looser regulations when the current 25-35s get into government power. Those oppressed children will be the enablers for you repressed pedos to have your way.

[Anonymous No.]

Does it mean ausfag can't even have normalfagish 18+ rated content?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914756
Did you even read the text? Maybe it's time to look up some news report in english from some IT pages. Loli will be panned, they plan to install a civil spy system like in communist regimes of the past, were butthurt fags can report content and then it will be added to the blacklist.
Everything that may offend children or show them anything non age approriate will be added to the list.

And was said, the UK will follow shortly, same witht he other thought-police commonwealth state Canada, and the EU is working behind the scenes on internet regulation guidelines.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914764
>I have no idea what I am talking about
fixed that for you

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914771
I sure will miss you Eurofags, Canucks, and Aussies form 4chan.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914780
hey if they try this in canada there will be a revolution.

[Anonymous No.]

While I also think the EU has malevolent intentions on that stuff, those friendly people maybe are unaware what they enacted themselve as de facto constitutional law in the EU on December 1st 2009.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union

Article 11. Freedom of expression and information

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

Article 7. Respect for private and family life

Everyone has the right to respect for his or her private and family life, home and communications.

Article 8. Protection of personal data

1. Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her.
2. Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law. Everyone has the right of access to data which has been collected concerning him or her, and the right to have it rectified.
3. Compliance with these rules shall be subject to control by an independent authority.

[Anonymous No.]

Kaigen is best Nitroplus villain ever. Just saying.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914732
These governments and politicians don't give a shit about people or the right way to run a country, all they want is to stay in power.

Now, just saying "for the children" is likely to get them a crapton of votes from the unintelligent uninformed majority of normalfags out there unless some shitty newspaper like the Sun can break it down for many of these people and explain why it's a bad thing.

Of course, if you oppose something like this you'll be called a pedo anyway.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914780
>real image
ffffffffffffffffffffffuuuuuu

[Anonymous No.]

heres an idea, GET YOUR FUCKING KIDS OFF THE INTERNET YOU PIECE OF SHIT PARENTS

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914787
This however is of no use in the UK and Poland and the Czech Republic, because goverments there are even more offended by human rights than, for instance, in 3-Strikes-France.
Australia is the only western country with no Bill of Rights.
And the Canadian one looks to me like a joke, because every right is bound to "reasonable limits", and, in addition, every province or the federal parliament may set Fundamental Rights out of power by the means of the Notwithstanding Clause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notwithstanding_clause

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914793
WHY is it a bad thing? I'm sure there are tons of valid reasons but I doubt anyone here has any real motive for resisting it other than they want to download japanese hentai loliporn.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914800
Scientology urged the Australian goverment to ban sites of "Anonymous", too. That means 4chan..?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914800
its something to be wary of.
i have no problem with them banning/blocking ILLEGAL content.

the problem is if they decide to ban "questionable" content

and i would be wary of any move of censorship.

as they say, once you know how to build a wall, its only a matter of time before you learn how to build a prison.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914800
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/australian-net-filter-to-block-video-games-too.ars

Also, I believe there's other bans too like "normal" porn, rapidshare and the likes, and possibly even youtube links.

[Anonymous No.]

i don`t look at that shit they are filtering, but if they blacklist 4chan I`ll cry...

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914810
lol
and many people want scientology to banned itself.
its illegal to "practice" scientology in Australia (their hoodoo medicine, "education" etc)
it is only allowed as private religion.
of course, what's allowed, and what they are actually doing are 2 different things.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914800
If I want to download japanese hentai loliporn, I should be allowed to.
If I've made a concious decision to look at the stuff in the privacy of my own home as a responsible adult, and I do not intend to share the material (or even the fact that I have even looked at the material in the first place) with anyone else, who honestly has the right to say that that is wrong?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914814
Interestingly, in Italy, Prime Minister Berlusconi was attacked and treated in hospital on monday.
Yesterday, the Italian Interior Minister proposed Internet censorship on people who make fun of the poor Berlusconi and glorify violence against him.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914820
The problem is, on the internet, it's free for anyone to look at, including children who are not allowed to consent to look at it.

Your argument is merely a good one for letting them sell the physical manga, since that would be between you and you only.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914814
>i have no problem with them banning/blocking ILLEGAL content.

Look at the definition of illegal, then look how easy it would be for them to block pretty much anything they wanted too.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914820
Well, the question is "is loli porn illegal/immoral"

now, im not saying it is or isnt.
but if, hypothetically, it is, then by all means it should be blocked.
and this is why theres such a fuss over the ISP, the government would have to make lots of decisions regarding stuff like loli quite quickly, meaning that the decision is most likely going to fall on whoever shouts loudest in the public.

and we all know that ignorant people shout the first and loudest, because the smarter ones are quite within thought.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914800
The effective Australian filters decrease the Internet speed by up to 80%. The filter systems who don't work properly (banning sites which aren't on the list or not banning sites which are on thelist) where the fastest (2%). Now if one says "I want Internet censorship which can easily circumvented - is of no avail - and decreases my speed by about 80% - while I pay the full price (like for the "working" connection) - I assume this person is a fool.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914835
Then start shouting, nigger. It's because you people are passive that laws don't get opposed.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914830
thats a stupid statement.
they would not be able to say, ban pictures of cars on the internet until they pass a law stating it was illegal.

and if you believe this is the "easy" aspect, then its something they could have done already.
although, i will admit, they dont want to piss off the public.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914828
And you are claiming that the Internet should have some kind of 'childproofing' on it that stops people from accessing the material. Back in my day, we called that parenting.

Also a quick PROTIP: Kids have been actively seeking porn/sex since the dawn of time. 99.9% of cases where a child has found some dodgy porn site is because the horny hormonal teenager has been looking for something to fap too. The Internet makes is easier to find, it hasn't influenced people to actively seek it out.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914814
Just a quick note- The people who decide whether or not to block/ban illegal content are the same people who decide what's illegal in the first place. They thus have the power to block/ban content based solely on their ability to put laws in effect. Hope they never decide to make out-of-power parties illegal.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914847
please see
>>3914842

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914835
Illegal meterial should no be banned from the internet this way, it should just be properly prosecuted.
I can insult you via letter or telephone, yet there is no filter in the telephone which filters out offensive words, even if you report them to a black list.
Also, most CP servers reside in countries with could internet connections. The danish police made a list, which claimed sth. like:
1st US: ~1000 servers (well, there are 300 million people in that country)
2st Germany : ~200,
and so on w/ other EU states and Japan and South Corea.
Why imposing a censorship system an the net instead just seizing the servers? You simply need those shit stuff on the net to advocate censorship, which you want - apparently - for other reasons.

[Anonymous No.]

In the future, every country will block every other country from the internet.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914850
>>3914842
Could you please make your point a little clearer?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914852
1. they don't know where those CP servers are
2. using your logic, we should have no restrictions on drinking age, merely severely punish those who act inappropriately while under the influence of alcohol, which, of course, is just a stupid idea.

i don't support censorship either, but the reasons you give i do not agree with.

[Anonymous No.]

http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censorship_blacklist%2C_6_A
ug_2008

At least they had the good sense to block just /b/ instead of *.4chan.org.

As long as i can still browse /jp/ I'm cool with it.

[Anonymous No.]

>we should have no restrictions on drinking age, merely severely punish those who act inappropriately while under the influence of alcohol, which, of course, is just a stupid idea.

That's not stupid at all.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914866
>The people who decide whether or not to block/ban illegal content are the same people who decide what's illegal in the first place.
They thus have the power to block/ban content based solely on their ability to put laws in effect.

meaningless statement, if they make something illegal, it makes perfect sense for whatever is illegal to be blocked, regardless of who does the blockng.

>Hope they never decide to make out-of-power parties illegal.

are you also going to hope they dont make free speech, or breathing illegal?

basically you've said
"the people who make things illegal, also block what, they have deemed to be, illegal. I hope they dont go overboard and become all dictator like"

now, becoming all dictator like is something that they could have, and would have done if they so desired regardless of their ability to censor stuff on the internet

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914888
right, so if a child (lets say, 8) drinks, and does something illegal like break a bunch of windows, we should punish him equally as an adult who did the exact same thing?

that's redundant.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914895
>if a child (lets say, 8) break a bunch of windows, we should punish him?

Yes. Don't tolerate that shit. And no, it's not a crime worthy of putting an adult in jail for months.

[Anonymous No.]

Internet censorship is stupid.
How are they gonna censored everything?
There are new websites created everyday? Are they gonna look at what people are downloading or something?
I guess it is time for the ausfags to emigrate or something.

[Your favorite Anonymous that lives in Bangkok No.]

Outlawing shit because people are unpleasant with it.

God damnit, /jp/.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914868
1. Well, apparently, they know. I just quoted from a document which a German party used for aguing against the the proposed German Filter. This document is - surpise - authored by the German "FBI" (the Federal police), which is responsible for such crimes - and the proposed filter. And the mentionend law enforcement authority used the paper of the Danish police. If you don't know the German Federal Police - they proposed the filtering, not just on CP, but also on virtually anything which is criminal offense in Germany. I fail to see why they should lie.
Of couse, the real "evil" servers run on anonymity networks etc., but you can't block them by DNS spoofing or "cleanfeed" for that reason.
2. You just play with words. You can't compare something which is sold on the market (alcoholics) to sth. which may appear "by surprise" say, on YouTube. Turkey blocks YouTube because the goverment feels offended by the content.
But I won't argue here, because people who oppose censorship shouldn't fight each other.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914902
The outcome is simply a whitelist. French ooo... Minister of Justice said: "We can't tolerate public WLANs (and such stuff), they outperform our Three-Strikes-Law. Public Internet Access should be based on a Whitelist, which only includes sites which are importand for our life".
She had such a list, which included the site of McDonald's.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914902
lack of a perfect solution does not mean there should be a lack of trying.

nothing is perfect, all the more reason to try and fix things.

>>3914900
even though this child would not have done such a thing, if he had not been under the influence of alcohol?

also, again, should the child be as severely punished as an adult? yes or no.

[Anonymous No.]

Sigh, it really is so difficult for people to just leave each other alone isn't it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914783
Haha, no. Here in Canada, the response to everything is "Well, it could be worse".

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914888
>>3914895
It seems that the missing point between you two is that >>3914888 considers being "under the influence" to not be a valid excuse for acting badly. I would concur, as voluntary drinking means that you also agree to the side-effects, namely a loss of judgment and the possibility of acting badly while so affected.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914913
>No proper use of capitalization
>Not an adult
Go back to kindergarten, you pedo.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914913
The solution is rather simple.
You first need to define what a "child" is. In this case, maybe 12/14 years.
Then you rule that children are "incomplete" humans and they can't decide properly.
But the parents are responsible for the child and it's education. So, to secure social peace, it is acceptable to take the parents to the court, until an age defined by law.

[Anonymous No.]

It isn't about what they will censored it is about censoring in the first place. Aren't the western world proud of their freedom of speech? Why are they such a hypocrite?

"First they came ..."
Fill in the rest yourself.

[Anonymous No.]

>even though this child would not have done such a thing, if he had not been under the influence of alcohol?
Actions are actions. If you're suggesting alcohol always makes people uncontrollable, it needs to be banned altogether.


>also, again, should the child be as severely punished as an adult? yes or no.

The child and adult should receive the same punishment and that punishment should be a public flogging, varying only in the strength used relative to the participant's body.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914906
it's not playing with words, the "by suprise" appearances would be analogous to people using alco pops (sweet, soft drink like alcohol) to get people drunk while telling them it's a normal soft drink (and yes, it's happened before)

now, people normally wouldnt post illegal content on youtube, nor would normal people give somone alcohol while telling them its non-alcoholic, but the fact is, that it happens due to the occasional bastard out there ruining it for everyone else.

which, under that argument, makes it sensible to moderate the distribution of alcohol (which is the case in reality) and likewise, in itself, does not go against the concept of some degree of censorship on the internet, of course, blocking whole batches of sites goes beyond "some degree" and youtube tends to be quite quick in dealing with illegal content, so it shouldn't be blocked.

and another thing, people with similar/same goals, but different reasons, motivations and methods should by all means express disagreement when there is such.

but im fucking tired, so yeah, gnight.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914981
Like I said, I won't argue with you. It's just a personal view. I respect your opinion and you freedom of speech. I am not Prime MinBEEEEEP of BEEEEEEP who BEEEEP and also has BEEEEP.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914936
>varying only in the strength used relative to the participant's body.

which essentially means that the child will recieve a lighter sentence.

so in the end, you admit that fundamentally, a child is distinct from an adult, and should be treated differently in terms of punishment.

also, i had not said "makes people act uncontrollablly" its an "influence" not a "controller", so to speak.
and the point is, where a child would be drastically effected by alcohol (due to both the childs inferior physical and mental capacity) an adult would (in most cases) not be effected as such.

which is why its much more sensible to prevent via moderation, rather than simply punish when things go wrong.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915002
Why feeding the troll? That was obviously just something like the arabic law.
If a child damages something, drunken or not, beacuse it watched a stupid TV show and had the impression this behaviour was OK, the answer can't be to whip it in public.

[Anonymous No.]

ITT ausfalians blinded by self-importance.
If you fags want to worry about something worldwide, worry about the ACTA or something.
Reported.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915002
>which essentially means that the child will recieve a lighter sentence.

No. If you hit two people of different masses with the same force, one punishment will be harsher. They will be equal only with adjustment.

>and the point is, where a child would be drastically effected by alcohol (due to both the childs inferior physical and mental capacity) an adult would (in most cases) not be effected as such.
This is stupid and you are stupid. Being drunk is being drunk.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915034
Have you ever been drunk ? Controlling oneself doesn't come easily to a child, whereas most adults manage.

[White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ No.]

>using your logic, we should have no restrictions on drinking age, merely severely punish those who act inappropriately while under the influence of alcohol, which, of course, is just a stupid idea.

Yes, because punishing individuals who cause problems is so much worse than outright banning whatever the hell we want to ban for EVERYBODY, even if other people are responsible enough to choose for themselves whether or not they do something with moderation.

Asking people to be responsible for their own actions is so passe.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915034
if by taking into account variations within humanity makes me stupid...well, it doesnt.

should we give all people who are "sick" the same medicine? or treat people with cancer (regardless of which stage of cancer they are in) with the same treatments?
are all, "illness is illness" and "cancer is cancer", using your rationale.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915054
What bullshit are you talking about?
I was playing True Love, Nocturnal Illusion, paradise height and those illusions rape games when I was about 12-15.
Did I go around raping little girls or having sex with little girls after that? No.
Sure alcohol will make someone lose control but watching porn or CP does not make you want to rape someone.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915090
I'm just saying your point on alcohol is mistaken, as children don't react the same way as adults.
I couldn't care less about their banning stuff from the internet.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915061
right, because "restrictions on drinking ages" is somehow equal to banning it for everyone

ive said one thing, and you've jumped hundreds of steps ahead of it.

and hoping that everyone will be responsible for their actions is just naive, human stupidity is vast and deep.
of course, i can understand why "banning everything" is horrifying, but thats not what's happening, and furthermore asking "people to be responsible for themselves" is just not going to happen, if it could happen, it would have already, and sometimes, people just cant (ie children) which is why we have certain restrictions, ie drinking age.

not all censorship is bad (i wouldn't want the nuclear lauch codes of the USA army to be freely available, for example, and not all "freedoms" (if you can call it such) is good (i wouldnt want children to have the freedom of carrying around weapons.
of course, ill admit that most censorship is bad (in this day and age, most are just for some political agenda, rather than genuinely benifiting mankind), and most freedoms are good (freedom to work, freedom to learn, love etc)

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915090
i said nothing about rape games and what not, and thats an entirely different topic all together.

secondly, alcohol has a distinct, observable effect on the human mind and body, why are you comparing rape games to it in the first place? meaningless argument on your behalf.

[Anonymous No.]

Everyone in this thread is now a sex offender.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915126
I am saying a person under18 or a child could differentiate what is good and what is bad on the internet.
Using the alcohol analogy is just bad for this case.

Seriously just how many kids had played GTA? Do you really think that some of the sites that are in the blacklist are as bad as GTA?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915135
As we already said yesterday. She's 19 or so.

[Anonymous No.]

Jesus the whole drinking argument is stupid. Just because a child could pay an adult to buy him alcohol does not mean that alcohol should be banned. Do you even understand this difference? I fucking hate children on the internet who act like retards, but that doesn't mean that because of these retards I'm not allowed to browse my fucking adult internet.
If you care about children then spend lots of money in software solution for parental control and get the message out to parents in a way they understand it.

[Anonymous No.]

What constitutes a problem is the fact that most people don't want this censorship. When was the last time a parent denied a child the right to play a game or watch an action movie ? Even then, most people aren't fased by the thought of a kid watching porn.

[White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ No.]

>>3915135
You could just say you viewed it by accident. You don't possess it, after all.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915117
>and hoping that everyone will be responsible for their actions is just naive, human stupidity is vast and deep.

This is why we created systems of justice. They help in making restitution and repairs after people do stupid things.

As for preempting stupidity by creating restrictions, it does work in theory. The problem that prevents this theory from working in reality is that you need non-stupid people to create the restrictions, and since such people do not exist by your own admission, such restrictions are going to be flawed by the stupidity of the people creating them.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915157
>stored on cache by accident
>two years ago
Arrest!
http://cbs13.com/local/limewire.child.porn.2.1346842.html

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915160
What is easier ?
Allowing everyone to have a gun and put people who hurt other people in jail or forbid everyone from having a gun and putting in jail the few people who manage to get one and hurt people nevertheless ?
Not saying that banning everything is a good thing, but it is easier to not rely on people being reasonable, because they aren't.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915142
your argument does not link, at all, infact.

>children know of morality
>alcohol is not relevant
>is the banned content > GTA?

but, for the sake of argument
1. yes, there are some children <18, or even <16 years of age who know of right and wrong, but there many, many of them who dont.
and morality is not the only thing that is important, its also about self control and sound judgement, something which many children lack, and lack moreso under the effect of alcohol.

and if you recall, my alcohol example was in regards to the concept of "no moderation, only punishment", if such a stance were adopted, i think that ultimately more people would end up harmed than the current stance of "moderation and punishment"

and yes, i whole heartedly agree that games ratings, what is "bad" and what is not (in the political world) is completely hypocritcal, inbalanced, and full of messed up priorities and double standards, hell, triple standards even.

but my argument so far has been behind the concept and rationale behind internet censorship.
i believe bringing up specific material would introduce a whole new beast to this discussion, which is something im not really in the mood for.

[Anonymous No.]

The problem is that family structures changed because of feminists, and parents do not have the time to bring up their children properly. Back in the days all media was highly regulated, except for books maybe.
Then the internat came and blew these restrictions away. The younger generations are more tech savy than the older ones. So even without bad intentions (which I'm seeing but anway) problems will occur and the discussion should be going somewhere how to provide worried parents with appropriate solutions instead of HURR LET'S BAN EVERYTHING NOT CHILD-FRIENDLY© DURR XD XD XD.

I'm not gonna give up my internet because of some 12year old faggots. I'm an adult, I'm on the internet since 10 years, don't even dare thinking about touching it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915168
It's easier to allow everyone to have a gun and punish the few who misuse it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915146
perhaps you should re-examine your statement.

you've taken "moderation of alcohol" to a "ban of alcohol"
dealing in black and white and absolutes is the mark of immaturity, who is the real child here?

also, if you hate children, then dont browse the internet, yet you still do, why? because you are free to do so, no one is arguing for you to be banned from the internet because of "stupid children" infact, its almost completely out of the blue, it does not follow from anything that has been said in this discussion.

much of your argument is within your own head.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915191
its also easier to solve world hunger by killing all the hungry people.
bu the right choice is to find a way to feed them.

but in order to feed them, there must be management and moderation.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915194
Cool story bro. You said that because children are prohibited off alcohol we should ban the internet because that's the same. But adults are allowed to consume alcohol but if they censor the internet it will affect everybody.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915173
>no moderation, only punishment
I am in motion of this.
Stupid people should be punished and purged from this world.
One more thing to add. Being under the influenced of alcohol make you lose your self control. Browsing evil sites on the internet does not make you lose your self control and rational thinking.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915205
Reread the thread.
the alcohol argument was in response to "dont moderate anything, merely persecute the offenders"

ie "no moderation, just punishment"
whereas alcohol is "moderation and punishment"

and you can't possibly tell me you were born an adult, everyone has been influenced by age restrictions while growing up, and as i said, i do not support blatant censorship of the internet, but i do welcome reasonable moderation, whatever that may be.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915200
What? You mean like cashing in taxpayer's money as subventions for food production then ship this under-priced food into 3rd world countries where it will destroy the local economies because they can't keep up with these prices.
So in the end, cui bono? Obviously the big corporations, first stealing money and than artificially creating foreign markets with the money and earning even more money. Feeding the poor? Flawless logic.

[Anonymous No.]

[White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ No.]

>yes, there are some children <18, or even <16 years of age who know of right and wrong, but there many, many of them who dont.

That's bullshit. They know what's right and what's wrong. They just think they can get away with doing wrong, because they see everyone else get away with it.

If you're over 8-years of age, you have no fucking excuse.

"OH OFFICER, I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS WRONG TO STICK A LOADED GUN UP TO SOMEONE'S HEAD AND PULL THE TRIGGER. SEND ME TO A JUVENILE DETENTION FACILITY UNTIL I'M 18, PLEASE!"

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915210
>Being under the influenced of alcohol make you lose your self control. Browsing evil sites on the internet does not make you lose your self control and rational thinking.

im not sure what this is in response to, but i agree with it to an extent.

a chemical influence is far more concrete than an intellectual one.

however, keep in mind, there are many websites out there such as "fat is a lifestyle, not a disease" which are most certainly harmful for those of weak mind.
perhaps it is one of the few things out there i would not mind seeing censored.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915220
>If you're over 8-years of age, you have no fucking excuse.

[White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ No.]

>>3915211
>but i do welcome reasonable moderation, whatever that may be.

The point is that nobody knows what "reasonable moderation" is, you cannot create a law that says "the government can reasonably moderate the internet", and then NOT expect them to act like total NAZIs and turn the internet into an e-police state.

Because that's what government does. It takes reasonable, moderate ideas, and mutates them into complete, jack-booted authority, if only so some fat slob in an office can stroke his penis while thinking about how much power he has over the lives of other people.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915229
I am saying that the alcohol analogy is stupid in this case. I have been saying this since my first post.

Seriously, how hard is it to install a fucking site blocker or whitelist on the home PC? The aussie government sure is stupid and wasting tax payer money implementing an oceania super firewall.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915220
the law has tried 14 (or was it 16?) year olds as adults before, they evaluate mental capacity/maturity, so no, your point is not solid enough.

also, while i certainly agree that those nearing an adult age should be held responsible for their actions (again, with regards to their mental capacity) even you agree that an 8 year old, or say, a five year old cannot be expected to suffer the same punishment as someone of an adult mind.

so really, the issue is "what is a child" rather than a distinct number we attached to an age.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915220
Not all people are as smart as you.
Treating all people the same is an atrocity to humanity.
Treating people equal BEFORE THE LAW is not.
--> Fair judgement.
If I go everyday into the supermarket to steal stuff because I don't accept the property order of the society that is different to theft because of psychologiacal issues.
It's true there are children who are smarter than adults. And there are adults who are more childish than 8 year olds. I think, even if you disagree, you will admit that the last part is correct.

[White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ No.]

>>3915242
>If I go everyday into the supermarket to steal stuff because I don't accept the property order of the society

No, that makes you a thief. Thieves do not respect the property order of society. They believe that "what's mine is mine, and what's yours is mine."

Even if you are raised by shitty parents, you have no doubt met other people that can explain why stealing is wrong, even if in abstract terms. You have the option of exploring WHY those laws exist before you decide that you're going to raid someone's house while they're on vacation and steal their t.v.

It's not because you're oppressed that you want to steal their t.v. It's because you want a fucking t.v., and you're a lazy son of a bitch who has no respect for others.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915211
What moderation are you talking about? There's only one solution: Self-moderation of parents. Because the other choices are bad choices like censorship for all or some new invented tracking systems on your ID to ensure that you are an adult person and every site that does not implement it will be banned.

And do you understand that right now, the latter chocies are being made into reality? And that it will destroy independent information systems and transform the internet into some interactive pay-tv system?

Anyway because of the web2.0 retards we won't be able to stop this process. Just wait and see. First the censor system will come to ban illegal sites and then corporate interests will be enforced like copyright issues and more importantly personal rights issues where you will have to ask the source directly to use any kind of information (and pay) i.e. images which would make 4chan and other sites void.
Encryption will be made illegal without a backdoor for the authorities because of LOL CHILDPORN

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915240
my alcohol analogy, again, was in regard to the logic behind the "no moderation, just punishment" statement put forward previously.

and i again, i dont agree with the censorship, and infact, most of the censorship so far is under a voluntary basis, ie, the government has not forced anyone (yet) to partake.

if this changes in the future...well, we will just have to see...

>>3915235
true, no one does not what reasonable moderation is, likewise, people do not know of a perfect social structure, or a perfect legal system.
it does not justify a lack of trying, and to a degree, a lack of experimentation.
if things go downhill, it will collapse in upon itself, after all, society cannot be built without the support of its people.
if people do not support the censorship if it becomes apparant it will not work, it is likely they will persue a different method of moderation.
the government has much to loose, and little to gain from pissing off its residents.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914931
>But the parents are responsible for the child and it's education. So, to secure social peace, it is acceptable to take the parents to the court, until an age defined by law.

MAXIMUM INVOLVEMENT PENALTY

[White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ No.]

>>3915241
>a five year old cannot be expected to suffer the same punishment as someone of an adult mind

A five-year-old child is less likely to mug someone with a gun because he wants money than a 14-year-old, unless that five-year-old has blatant access to firearms and is seriously fucked up in the head.

Even then, we don't coddle the five-year-old. We lock that kid away somewhere until we're sure that the kid is somehow "fixed," and isn't going to do it again.

Even at that, I would like to see cases such as this end with some sort of recompense to the victim, instead of treating it like a "OH, YOU'RE SCREWED UP SO YOU GET AWAY SCOTT FREE AFTER SO MANY YEARS, lol" case, which happens so often.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915200
Again, it's easier to simply let people face the consequences of their actions than it is to try to remove the possibility of taking a bad action. As for world hunger itself, it's a consequence of bad decisions on both the part of individuals and management structures. In the case of Zimbabwe, such attempts to prevent starvation through moderation and centralized management resulted in an even worse starvation problem, even among the people who had avoided it before.

Repeatedly changing the situation won't help you.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915242
>Not all people are as smart as you.

>If I'm insane theft isn't theft

Well, he proved his first point pretty readily.

[White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ No.]

>>3915278
"Not accepting the property order of society" is not a psychological issue, unless you're positing that Marxists and anarchists are insane.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915253
And again why aren't any aussie protesting or fighting back against this law?

They should allow the people paying for the internet choose whether they want this blanket ban or not by allowing them a choice to either block it at the ISP end and not subjecting this to everyone.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915253
thats a slippery slope argument.

i could equally structure an argument that buring a 5 dollar bill will destroy society

"i burn this bill, people see me burn the bill and do the same, the government does not like it and deploy martial law, all anarchy breaks loose, world war III, the end"

your argument would only be reasonable if the events themselves are resonable outcomes to their precursors,

ie "first banning illegal sites, then corpate interests"

that does not seem to be the reasonable outcome, sure, it's possible, but is it the only possibility? and is it the most likely one? definitely not.

Australia (country currently doing this trial) has only ever had a single case of government approved censorship (besides this one) and that was during WW2, where they blacked out certain details in war letters.
the public had an uproar about this, and i doubt the government would jump in blindly to censorship again.

[Suika Ibuki !BOOZePXCcc No.]

>>3915289
gb2/bed/, Alan.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915299
I know it's incredibly pedantic of me, but I'm struggling to take your arguments seriously.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915252
in order to steal something there must be "intent"

this is something the law recognises, and infact, many people do.

if you forget to pay after refueling your car, and had no intention to steal the fuel, but regardless, you had inadvertantly drove off, that is not theft.
proving it is a completely different matter of course.

so likewise, an insane person, if they hypothetically believed an object to belong to them (ie, someone who believes themselves as a God/king of the world) then its not "theft" as defined by the law.

you may disagree with this view, but it sounds right to me to take into account "intent"
it also makes the different between an accident and murder.

[White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ No.]

>>3915299
>i doubt the government would jump in blindly to censorship again.

Do we live in the same world?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915311
well, to summarise, you seem to have exaggerated the possible negative outcome of censorship.

such is my argument, and i think it is a reasonable one.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915315
That is complete bullshit. Most countries have an additional 'with intent' clause on almost every law they have.
You can prove there was no intent, but you'll still get prosecuted to the crime.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915315
Necessarily, those insane people should be locked up forever.

This solves several problems.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915321
And you have failed to give a single example of a positive aspect of censorship.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915320
perhaps not.
and even if they did, that's what the oppositon is for, they would pounce at the chance to expose such a thing, so any attempt at censorship would be very difficult to hide from the public.

so if the Australian government were to censor something in a disagreeable way, it would quickly become apparant if its accepted by the public.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915299
Ever played the Australian version of L4D2? How about Fallout 3, ever played that at all, in any country?

[White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ No.]

>>3915315
The difference between murder and an "accident" is that murder is one is committed with knowledge and the other is committed with no knowledge. The murderer knows he's killing someone and wants to do so. The person responsible for the accident doesn't know he's killing someone and doesn't want to do so.

Two different things.

I think what you're TRYING to say is that the difference between someone who is insane killing and someone who isn't insane killing is the understanding of the law and knowledge of right and wrong.

But that's unimportant. Murder is murder, even if the person is insane. We just treat the perpetrator differently depending on mental competency. It doesn't change the nature of the crime itself.

Also, kleptomaniacs are not treated as "not responsible for the actions due to mental disease or defect," unless they're unaware of whether their actions are right or wrong. The urge to do something is not an excuse for doing it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915337
besides potentially blocking harmful material?
not for myself necessarily, but an example would be "fat is healthy" or "homeopathy is the best medicine" those websites (in my opinion) have quite the potential to lead people down a bad path.

i have no problem with blocking things that should be blocked, another issue is what the government feels should be blocked.
its very likely the government and I have different opinions on what constitutes "illegal content"

[White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ No.]

>>3915363
>but an example would be "fat is healthy" or "homeopathy is the best medicine" those websites (in my opinion) have quite the potential to lead people down a bad path.

Those are alternative lifestyle choices. If you enact this, then congratulations:

You have now opened the door to banning religion on the internet. Or, in fact, any dissenting point of view that does not conform with government mandate of what is "good and right and 'truthful'."

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915345
I played the localized Japanese version.
http://www.nicovideo.jp/watch/sm6551457

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915355
No, it is as i said, the difference between an accident and a murder is intent.
if you intend to kill someone, and succeed, you are a murderer
if you do not intent to kill someone, and you inadvertantly do, you are not a murderer, you may be seen as such by some people, but the law will recognise the person to have committed "manslaughter".
there is no logical reasoning i can put forward (off the top of my head) for my reliance on "intent", so it is unlikely i will convince you what i have said above is reasonable, suppose theres nothing more to be said on that point"

and also, the urge to do something is actually quite often a good justification, in itself, to do something (i am hungry, so i shall eat. i am bored, so i shall read) these are in essence "urges".
howeverm if there is a dominant reason, or factor to not do something, then that completely subverts the justification through desire (i am hungry but i am fasting due to reason X so i will not eat, i am bored but i have a test so i shall not read a book but instead i shall study)
the last part was off topic, i appologise.

anyway, im going to sleep.
i guess agree to disagree.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915410
you're an idiot. QED

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915374
im looking it from a medical perspective.

"fat is healthy" is viewed by most, if not all practitioners of science and medicine to be a lie, a harmful one at that.

of course, there is the whole ethical issue of freedom of speech, but in my view, perserving this single instance of "freedom of speech" would be at the cost of "a persons right to receive sound medical judgement" and this would extent to a much larger group of people.

rather than "the moral choice"
it is "the lesser of two evils"

but yeah, sleep time.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3915418
I love you too, gnight.

[Anonymous No.]

So what's tl;dr?

[White Ren !YLuFFdRcFQ No.]

>>3915410
Manslaughter is not truly an accident. It's "reckless disregard for human life," which cannot be claimed to be an "accident."

>>3915426
>perserving this single instance of "freedom of speech" would be at the cost of "a persons right to receive sound medical judgement" and this would extent to a much larger group of people.

Since when do people have the "right to receive sound medical judgment"? Who keeps making up these shitty "rights?" You get what you pay for, not what you need. If you're reading lifestyle advice on the internet for free, then you're getting butt kiss, which is what you're paying for. That's your choice on whether to follow it or not.

Just as McDonald's is not responsible for you getting fat from eating their food, Atkins is not responsible for you suffering health problems by using that diet system (correctly or incorrectly). Nobody is forcing you to use it. If it sounds bogus, then don't do it.

Nobody is enacting federal law to prevent sites from having information on Taoism, which arguably has life-threatening ideas concerning how to achieve immortality.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3914780
Damn you. DAMN YOU!

[Anonymous No.]

>130 posts and 8 image replies omitted
Got quite a ways to go, op.

[Anonymous ‮～ᚻᛟᛟᛟᛟᚩᛗ ‪‪‪‬ ‪‬ ‭‬ !Jones4ZrPA No.]

>>3915602
>Who keeps making up these shitty "rights?"
At some point, somebody decided that Government, which already supposedly existed to serve the interests of the people, ought to have a conscience and do good things. "Life, liberty, and property" becomes "health care, civil rights, and welfare".
It's not really a bad idea, except where human greed and stupidity comes into play.

[Anonymous No.]

herp a derp