I for one do not wish to have a filter that should be my right not to have one..
Yet in the offline world you already do ... so isn't it somewhat incongruous that the same should not apply in the online world ?
and your more then happy to see your internet speeds suffer, you place a filter on your own pc
I already do in the sense that I'm happy to run a mere P3-700mhz laptop wirelessly connected at mere 54g speeds to a measily 256/64 connection when not using common dial-up.
It does everything I generally want to do and is a huge improvement on the 1200/75 BAUD connection I used to have on my XT back in 1985 when we were all chatting in the online environment called "Viatel" and wondering when AUSTEL was going to come knocking on our doors for hooking up illegal hardware to the telecom lines. :)
[deleted], you are already free to either keep or break the law, but surely you must understand that at very least our elected govenment has a duty to the people it governs to spend tax payer money on the control and prevention of things and activities that are illegal both online and offline ?
You might want more opportunity to make a choice in relation to acting illegally or not, but shouldn't I have "the right" to have me and mine pro-actively protected from anything to do with illegal choices you might make ?
Should your "right" to be given free opportunity to behave illegally be given greater worth than my "right" to live in an environment where illegal actions with all their repercussions, are less likely to occur in the first place ?
Yes, I know this distills down to the "think of the children" argument, but when it comes to the welfare of the future and the preservation of what is generally deemed to be good and innocent and yet so easily corrupted when natural duty of care is neglected, what really is wrong with "thinking of the children" ?
Don't we already have offline filtering and censorship in place because of them ?
Shouldn't the same apply for the online world ?
regarDS
Posts
