Washington Post on dangers of self-censorship for the Net

[TruthMonger]

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> The Washington Post
> November 10, 1997
> EDITORIAL; Pg. A20
> 'Self-Regulation' and the Net
> 
>    CLOSE WATCHERSs of the long-running TV ratings fight could read it as a
> series of tussles over exactly how far the government can go in pushing the
> proprietors of an expressive medium -- such as TV -- to curb that
> expression through "voluntary" action. When do carrot-and-stick become just
> stick? That story isn't over yet: Congress, though antsy, has so far
> managed to stay on the safe side of the line that separates pressure from
> outright censorship, and the different responses of different networks is
> ironic proof that the policy isn't completely coercive. But those who want
> to see yet more variations on the theme can watch the whole pattern play
> out again in White House efforts to encourage self-regulation on the
> Internet.

  On the InterNet the patterns will be Global, which means the censors
will have to act Globally (United Nations / New World Order), divide up 
the international pie into geopolitical slices, or a combination of
both.

  The InterNet and TV are not going to be separate entities for very
long, and the same applies to phones, faxes, etc.
  As a Canadian, I am 'allowed' to see bare tits on TV, even in prime
time on News Channel shows such as 'Fashion File.' I am not, however,
allowed to express hate toward coloreds, kikes, ragheads, wagon burners,
or left-handed people in general, on the InterNet. As an American, the
situation seems to be reversed.
  In the globalization of the combined media, it seems logical to assume
that the result will be either _both_ of the above being 'allowed,' or
_neither_ of them being 'allowed.' We can expect that the inanities and
injustices which take place on a regional basis, at present, will be
taking place on a global basis, in the future, with the Jackboots of
fascist censorship being wielded in bizarre and random ways.

  If a person in Utah (?) can be prosecuted for a child in another state
accessing material that is consided 'illegal' a thousand miles away,
then everyone who puts a picture of a female with her ankles showing
on the InterNet can potentially be prosecuted by Iraq. (In reality,
only our Iranian allies, not our Iraquian enemies, would be allowed
to exercise this 'right.')
  Anyone who disputes the above possibility should ask themselves if
they have more oil than Iran. History contains manifold examples of
the citizens being nothing more than pawns in the rulers games of
power and wealth.
  (Hell, the government doesn't even give a fat rat's ass about the
   medical problems of the citizens who went overseas to defend our
   source of foreign oil.)

 >    The administration, after coming to grief over its dogged support
for
> the unconstitutional Communications Decency Act, now takes the position
> that it's up to software providers, parents and citizen groups to make the
> Internet safe for children, though the government has a beefed-up role to
> play in enforcing existing laws in cyberspace, for instance, those against
> child pornography, stalking or harassment. As an accompaniment, though, it
> is putting considerable public pressure on Internet players to develop a
> system of ratings and "taggings" for sites that would allow parents to sort
> Internet access by a few broadly agreed-upon categories.

  In preparation for the justice system to point out that 'everbody
agrees'
that you and I are criminals.
  "We don't want to 'take' your guns, we just want to 'register' them,
for
your protection."
  We have fallen for the "taking your freedom, privacy and rights away
for
your own protection--an inch at a time" scam time and time again. If we
allow it to be done on the InterNet, it will be for the _last_ time.

  We are now dealing with GLOBAL rights and freedoms. This is very
important
to understand! We are not talking about our rights as an American, our
freedom as a Canadian, our privacy as an African. We are talking about
our rights and freedoms as a human being! 

> Ira
> Magaziner, the administration point-person on Net issues, took a different
> tone in a speech to Internet advertisers. The "tremendous economic
> benefits" of the Net won't work, he said, "if we don't get efficient
> industry self-regulation on issues like privacy and content. . . . If you
> fail, we will have to go the legislative route. That gets caught up in the
> political process and will be less rational and efficient."

  Translation~~"How dare you call it Jackboot Fascism if we promise only
to kick you if you don't comply?"

>    Well, yes -- and also less legal. Don't get us wrong: Self-restraint, in
> some of these cases, is a pretty good place for the providers of what's now
> called "content" to end up. But the line between urging self-restraint and
> threatening government censorship is a thin one. The White House, no less
> than Congress, needs to watch its step.

  The self-restraint should be applied by the children and their
parents.
Try defending yourself in any court of law by claiming that the fault
lies with others for not restraining you from breaking into their house
while they were gone, from not having better theft-protection for their
automobile.
  How have we come to the point where a burglar can sue you for falling
down your basement steps? How have we come to the point where a cop can
arrest you for sleeping in your car instead of driving drunk? How have
we come to the point where someone a thousand miles away can purposely
access your personal web site in order to have you imprisoned for
doing something which is perfectly legal in your physical location,
and many others?

  The bottom line is that censorship and fascism are going Global, in
all its forms, and this will only result in our falling under an ever
increasing multitude of laws, regulations, prohibitions and taboos.
  Whenever something is allowed in one physical space and prohibited
in another, the chances are that the merger/interaction of those
spaces will result in prohibition, or restriction (followed by
prohibition).

  This time the fight is Global. It is for ALL of the marbles!

  As always, 'they' only want Austria...'they' only want the dangerous
guns...'they' only want the Jews...'they' only want to prohibit nude
pictures of people under the age of 16...18...20...50...100.
  'They' only want to take away the freedoms and rights of the 'bad' 
people. Are you going to allow them to do that, indiscriminately,
without a fight, because _you_ are not one of the 'bad' people...today?

  You don't live in Austria, you don't own guns, you are not Jewish
and you have no nude pictures, so you are safe...for now.
  However, if your ankles are showing, or your head is uncovered...
tomorrow...

  'They' are going to think regionally, and act globally. Count on it!

TruthMonger