Censorship on the Internet
Published 1 year, 1 month ago in Making News.My initial response to you meinrosebud never made it passed the moderator. Suffice to say, I believe that dictatorships come into being under the guise of Governments choosing selectively what information a person is entitled to have in their possession.
There is far more good useful clean information coming through the internet which bypasses Government control of Media Content in the written word. I’ve never encountered a “filthy” website, most likely because I have never knowingly tried to access one.
However, under current legislation, my own website, situated elsewhere in cyberspace, could be seen as offensive to the Christian interpretation of a person’s individual right to die a good death, because they believe in a God, that for me does not exist. That is regardless of their individual medical condition, life must be preserved at any and all costs!
I strongly resent this type of censorship over my beliefs which are not necessarily the same as others, but could be seen as “evil” depending entirely on one’s POV. In the same way, I don’t ram my views down others throats I reserve the same rights for freedom for myself of speech and action which harms no one.
I consider myself a rational adult able to make informed decisions for myself. I have raised children and been actively involved in the daily lives of my many grandchildren.
I do not need censorship to enable me to function in a proper and responsible manner.
6 Responses to “Censorship on the Internet”
Leave a Reply
Your reply will not appear on the site until it has been approved
I feel for whoever is supposed to be editing your guff. Don’t you realise that the nonsense you write is incredibly long and boring? You could sum it up in two lines but you take 200. Virtually no one will even start to read it. If someone has actually bothered to censor you I say good on them.
I agree with you, Marywalsh… I hate the idea of censorship of the entire internet, although I can understand why they censor Nook… if they didn’t, all my perverted posts about what I want to do with movie villains and recommendations of kooky illegal activities as a great pastime would have made it through and corrupted more minds.
We knew in advance that Nook is censored, and I can deal with the fact that they may censor things I didn’t think needed censoring. I just wish they’d let us know IF they’ve censored us (or if it’s just another technical glitch) and perhaps a line on why, so we can still have our say in a way that won’t offend anyone.
… And just a note - not all Christians are anti-euthanasia. I definitely believe, as it says in the Bible, that life is sacred. I just don’t believe that “life” is solely defined as a heartbeat or rise and fall of someone’s chest. Life is quality of life and the ability to give to, receive from, enjoy, learn from and interact with the world without constant agony. To take THAT away is murder, whether the person is still “alive” or not. If someone has already lost that, then to help them to die (should they wish to) is definitely not murder - it’s mercy.
I know Lady Chaos that many Christians are pro euthanasia. It is the management of the churches that compel Christians to take preserving life to the ultimate but even the pope himself has given some ground when dealing with the subject of the seriously and chronically ill person. Unfortunately it is murder under the law as it stands in Victoria, and five years of work has not changed the Government’s mind on that.
I too would like to know whether the Nook is censoring me or whether it is a clitch in the system because just now it took five efforts and still failed to “submit”….
I am often quite bluntly honest about my experiences which have resulted in my opinions about certain issues being forceful.
Ok mecontrumundum I admit as you’d intended, to be “hurt” by your barbed comments but why bother to be nasty when you could just as easily switched the dial. Or are you someone I have personally offended with a comment about Council activities?.
the central issue is what Mary states as freedom of speech which ‘harms no one’. The older I get, sadly, I become more ‘conservative’. I do on principle abhor censorship - especially when it has its roots in political agendas rolled out under the guise of paternalism. Having said that, I am no longer so clear and adament that everyone should be allowed to speak their mind on anything! Do we permit vile pornography to invade our screens at home - especially when this was never asked for? or what of the poison of David irving and his ilk? Sure, we can counter-argue, and point out the fallacies/injustices of such positions. But, is this enough? Should these sites be shut down in the first place? Nothing is black and white anymore - I’m forever seeing shades of grey!
I’m often impressed with your comments Lady C, they show wisdom beyond your years
HOW TO DEFEND YOUR POV
A wise man once told me, if it’s a choice between a conspiracy or a “stuff up” (he actually used a less polite term), then go with the “stuff up” every time.
Apply Occam’s Razor: “If there are two (or more) equally valid, but conflicting hypotheses for an observed phenomena, one should choose the hypothesis that requires the least number of steps to explain it.” If you have different explanations for something, all of which can explain it equally well, then you have no reason to choose a complex reason over a simple one.
click on the HUMBUG website for more
http://humbugonline.blogspot.com/2006/01/9-11-conspiracy-theorist-aka-cretinous.html