71 Comments

1. Bob Sykes:

Beginning in the 16th Century and ending in the early 20th Century, the True Humans abandoned Europe for the New World, leaving behind the feudal/socialist/fascist subhumans. Consequently, modern Europeans are genetically incapable of liberty or rational thought.

The process of collecting all the True Humans in one place is now continuing, and we are reaping the great harvest from Asia, Africa and Latin America. A glorious future awaits us, while the rest of the world will rot in their self-made Hells.

Dec 29, 2008 - 5:43 am 2. Doug Loss:

When a politician says “This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it,” you are virtually guaranteed that it is exactly a campaign against free speech.

Dec 29, 2008 - 5:51 am 3. peterike:

Were any Republican administration to make a move toward “rating” of Internet sites, it would be met with howls of protest from the Left and all kinds of slippery-slope arguments. It would be the outrage-du-jour.

It will be interesting — and grimly entertaining — to see how the Left justifies this, because coming from the Brow of O, of course they will find it’s all fine and dandy. And that’s because they will understand it for what it is, the first step in identifying the content of the web (by political affiliation) in order to more easily repress it in the future.

This is going to be only one move of many that will be justified as being “for the children.”

Dec 29, 2008 - 6:13 am 4. Shakespeare_101:

This would certainly simplify efforts to screen out websites at a federal gatekeeper level bases on content. Since websites already can be filtered at the micro-level for content with any good blocker or firewall, this would seem to be a tool designed for a macro-level. From a technical standpoint, to prevent gimicking, this would almost require somekind of rating system that was set by a third party based on a software scan of the site before the reader reached it. This would result in gateways and infrastructure probably being setup outside US control in an effort to get around the restriction and lots of work for lawyers. Would countries gain better controls to limit access for residents to information they deemed appropriate? You bet!
Nope…this is pretty much officially stupid.

Dec 29, 2008 - 6:17 am 5. Peter Boston:

It is for the children. These self anointed dwarfs do not want your children seeing or hearing anything that would challenge their right of self anointedness.

Dec 29, 2008 - 6:20 am 6. programmer:

peterike predicts:

It will be interesting — and grimly entertaining — to see how the Left justifies this, because coming from the Brow of O, of course they will find it’s all fine and dandy. And that’s because they will understand it for what it is, the first step in identifying the content of the web (by political affiliation) in order to more easily repress it in the future.

programmer predicts hopefully:

If language is used as a filter trigger, most Leftist’s sites will be reduced to a collection of “you”, “are”, “a”,…well you get the idea. In a sense, they will be left speechless.

Dec 29, 2008 - 7:06 am 7. Zim:

Mr. Orwell, if he were alive today, would be sick of being so right all the time.

It’s just another stupid government game that will be replete with loopholes and beaurocrats, lots of beaurocrats.

Dec 29, 2008 - 7:09 am 8. feeblemind:

I suspect sites such as Belmont Club will be rated ‘adults only’ while sites like Daily Kos will be deemed suitable for 10 year olds. It will be a great way to filter unwanted ideas.

Dec 29, 2008 - 7:45 am 9. Michelle Renee:

It’s a make work program for bureaucrats. Someone has to make the call, and with billions of websites it will take millions of sweaty little functionaries sitting in their cubicles surfing the web and wiggling in their seats.

Dec 29, 2008 - 7:57 am 10. Gordon:

#2:

How does it go? “The more they protested their innocence the more we counted our spoons.” Something like that; corrections welcome.

Dec 29, 2008 - 8:07 am 11. Michelle Renee:

“…the government was planning to negotiate with the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to draw up new international rules for English language websites”

New international rules? Who elected Obama and this British minister the world government anyway? Did the United States join the EU overnight? “Oh, but think of the children,” they will say.

Dec 29, 2008 - 8:08 am 12. Ernie G:

Years ago, in the days of the Soviet Union, I heard an interview of a TASS spokesman on NPR. The interviewer pressed him on issues of censorship and freedom of speech. The TASS man indignantly replied, “You are ignoring the fact that the people have a very important right - the right to be protected from harmful ideas. We take our responsibilities in that regard very seriously.”

Apparently the notion of the “people’s very important right to be protected from harmful ideas” did not die with the Soviet Union.

Dec 29, 2008 - 8:29 am 13. Herb:

#1 Bob Sykes:

I think you’re right but would include the self-immolation of WWI and II. Particularly wrt Britain and Germany, where they lost their prime males in the first and their children in the second. After that there was nothing left.

Its also interesting that the rest of the Urps (Italy, and the East) left there for here before the cataclysm and have prospered.

The French didnt count before and dont count now(full disclosure: I’m part Gallic to the 4th or 5th generation).

Dec 29, 2008 - 8:33 am 14. Clioman:

“This is not a government campaign against free speech — you’re quite free to praise the government as often as you wish.”

Dec 29, 2008 - 8:33 am 15. Herb:

#6 programmer:

Given the multiple paths in the web, Id think it really difficult to seal off large portions of the (presently) free world. Tho’ I think your right about the resulting effect on content.

Dec 29, 2008 - 8:37 am 16. Michelle Renee:

Bob Sykes, I wonder if you consider the State of Israel to consist of sub-humans despite having abandoned Europe. After all, they have a socialist economy.

Dec 29, 2008 - 8:38 am 17. Mark:

Peter Boston writes: “It is for the children. These self anointed dwarfs do not want your children seeing or hearing anything that would challenge their right of self anointedness.”

I think Peter is correct in general that the motivations for policing the internet are political and will inhibit freedom of speech. The dreading “chilling effect” that the left fears from government is only chilling when it might inhibit leftist speakers or hurt their self-esteem.

On the other hand, I would dearly like to see the internet purged of pornography (knowing full well that such a thing will never happen). Social conservatives have had a friend in the White House who directed his AG to prosecute the worst of the child pornographers. That zeal will not continue into the new administration. Instead we will have zeal for limits on opposition speech and no limits on matters that, ultimately, relate to human slavery, trafficking, and degradation.

Libertarians and social conservatives will differ in their thinking about this issue.

Dec 29, 2008 - 8:51 am 18. Lifeofthemind:

Less is easier to regulate than more. Socialism naturally reduces the size and complexity of an economy and by extension atomizes and simplifies the underlying society. Eventually this produces a simplified, stratified and shrinking population. Therefore there is a congruence of interests between government bureaucrats and socialists.

Class is encouraged to view the movie Brazil.

Dec 29, 2008 - 9:10 am 19. Gordon:

#s 1, 13:

I’ve always imagined the following conversation in some foreign country:

A: “This place stinks. The government is corrupt, the police stage kidnappings, there is no hope of any jobs. I’m going to the US.”
B: But they don’t like us there. The food’s not like ours, we don’t speak English, you have to work very hard. I’m staying here; it’s not so bad.”
A: “All the same, I’m going.”

Consider the difference in mentality, in personality: A represents the people who formed and enrich this country, whether from Asia, Europe, or Latin America. We get the best people and that’s the fundamental difference between the US and elsewhere–a certain way of thinking.

Dec 29, 2008 - 9:11 am 20. Staring In Disbelief:

I have no intention of letting my children anywhere near the internet until they are 18, so I have less to worry about. Also, I have no objection to some ratings as I believe the system used for television is a reasonable one (which I don’t trust myself, either). I am a far more restrictive censor where my children are concerned than any agency of the government, independent ratings board or automated technological solution prone to evasion.

Also, I am less concerned about the Fairness Doctrine (or some internet equivalent) actually becoming law because I think Obama is too smart to pick that fight. It would be an enormously risky and bloody fight guaranteed to galvanize his currently disorganized and demoralized opponents. I don’t think he will judge it worth the political capital to engage in such a fight. He strikes me as more of an over-cautious type who will lose political capital because he won’t use it for any cause, rather than a risky one.

Dec 29, 2008 - 9:14 am 21. Insufficiently Sensitive:

The comment that I spent some time developing has been sent to Jehannum following a message that said “you are posting comments too quickly - slow down”. First time ever. What gives?

Dec 29, 2008 - 9:16 am 22. Lifeofthemind:

S.I.D. lives on Hope and counsels others to do nothing. Obama believes in Audacity and we have no reason to believe that he will not use every tool available to dismantle those forces opposed to him. He and his backers have spent decades dreaming of Real Radical Change. They intend to implement it starting at 12:30 PM EST on January 20th. Do not take comfort in false hope.

Dec 29, 2008 - 9:21 am 23. Lifeofthemind:

@Insufficiently Sensitive,
WordPress, our own little foretaste of the Big Nanny technology to come, congratulations. My guess is that when PJM started the hope was that the considerable web site engineering skills of Charles of LGF would be available to improve the experience. Alas that did not happen. I avoid posting links because they tend to go into “moderation” or vanish completely.

Dec 29, 2008 - 9:26 am 24. Dave:

If Burnham’s name was Pinocchio, his body would be in London while his proboscis would be sexually harassing a polar bear.

This is about controlling the spread of
ideas and information that help keep liberty
alive, well, and at large.

Hang him, draw him and quarter him, I say.

Dec 29, 2008 - 9:29 am 25. TonyB:

Bob, define a “True Human”. Posting as I am from London do I count?

Dec 29, 2008 - 9:37 am 26. Roderick Reilly:

Just another nutless, toothless, post-modern pissant of a Lymie-poofter Brit who should be smothered in his sleep. He probably has bad teeth and bad skin to boot.

Cretinous Crapweasel.

Dec 29, 2008 - 10:00 am 27. Roderick Reilly:

“”"”"”Bob, define a “True Human”. Posting as I am from London do I count?”"”"”"

Simply smear your front door with lamb’s blood, and you will be spared the consequences of the coming Plague.

Dec 29, 2008 - 10:02 am 28. Staring In Disbelief:

Lifeofthemind: It is cold calculation and observation that guides my opinion. Obama has so far (through his public statements and his administration appointments) shown himself to be more a cautious liar than an audacious fool. While this may very well change on January 20th, he is being sworn in as a US Constitutional President, not Dictator For Life. Not yet, anyway. His backers have indeed dreamed of the day they can remake the US into their image of perfection, but a President is as much a captive of his administration as they are in his employ. Overreach at court packing cost FDR dearly, as it did Gingrich. Obama’s campaign was smart because he played to “Not Lose”, rather then to win. Now that he has to actually govern he can depend on proxies in Congress to pass the worst nightmares of conservatives, but what survives the occasional filibuster HE MUST SIGN OR VETO. Once signed it belongs to him. Once passed, it has to be defended in 2010 by literally hundreds of Democrats who ran as conservatives or moderates. The more wild eyed and off topic (i.e. not focused on the economy) the initiative is, the more likely it will drain his administration of energy and support (a la Bill Clinton’s costly Gays In The Military fight).

Far from counseling others to do nothing, I counsel them to pick their battles wisely and do not expect our enemy to simply hand us a huge opportunity. I do not believe in the slippery slope. I do believe that our opponent’s moment of greatest vulnerability (not strength) approaches this January. Nothing fails like success, and counterpunching can be a very effective political strategy.

Dec 29, 2008 - 10:13 am 29. Staring In Disbelief:

Clarification: Overreach cost Gingrich, not court packing!

Dec 29, 2008 - 10:14 am 30. Insufficiently Sensitive:

@Lifeofthemind 23, thanks, I think that nailed it. There was a link in the post.

“This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people.

Andy Burnham is emitting the same tired smokescreen that has for 30 years supported academies and public employers in imposing mountains of regulations all declaring ‘you can’t say that’ (see David Bernstein’s book) in their campaign to ‘protect’ sensitive souls while imposing an unconstitutional PC regime on the free-speakers.

The left lives by codes, and ‘protection’ is a leading example. Adopted of course from thugs whose ‘protection’ rackets required you to pay them not to damage you (Alinskyites love that kind of logic), it has grown to the point that to ‘protect’ means to seize control of. Next target would be the internet, all to spare the delicate folks who might be offended to suffer someone else’s opinion or, God help us, facts.

It may be that some Democrats, having now emplaced their empty celebrity President on the throne, can remember and help defend the principle of free speech. The rest of us better prepare some strong defenses.

Dec 29, 2008 - 10:46 am 31. Peolesdru:

The rationale for website ratings would be to help parents keep their kids away from objectionable material. So here’s how you do that:

If you want to be a “Kid-Friendly” site, you register with some sort of group that will certify you thus. Otherwise, simply volunteer your site to be the equivalent of “NC-17″ and move on with your life.

Dec 29, 2008 - 10:52 am 32. NahnCee:

I’m not so sure it’s a totally bad idea. I’ve thought for some time that we needed a filter to keep the 14-year-old boys confined to their own space where their obscenities and insanity doesn’t overflow into real life.

Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to some how filter out the KosKids trolls? Rather than shutting down Belmont Club or decreeing what can and cannot be said, flip it around so Belmont Club can elect who will be heard — rather like Charles Johnson already does at LittleGreenFootballs.

I have a feeling if it were voted on, the Russian spies and Muslim trolls would be allowed in because they’re basically so amusing.

Dec 29, 2008 - 12:42 pm 33. Michelle Renee:

Oh, Wretchard does a pretty good job at weeding out the personal attacks. Just roll back a post or two to see the results.

Dec 29, 2008 - 12:45 pm 34. buckets:

Peolesdru # 31

I agree completely with your idea.

I understand the rationale behind a ratings system, because we currently have a similar system in the U.S. with our film industry. Films have to be submitted to the MPAA before release in order to receive a content-based rating.

While the boards are supposed to act in a non-partisan way, and seem to actually do so, the rating given obviously can affect how many people can see the film - if a movie is rated for adults, less people will be able to see it; just as if a website like BC was rated “for adults” (because of our warmongering, AGW denial, offensive statements about Islam, etc) it would be read by less people than a “for teenagers” site like the Daily Kos. And just as an aside, I would like to note that the MPAA has now started listing “scenes of smoking and cigarette use” as reason for a harsher rating….

The best way to do this is let the ratings system be voluntary, without requiring registration and review by the government. Software could be written only to allow access to these “kid-friendly” or “teenager-appropriate” sites, without the burdensome intrusion on sites who don’t wish to submit to the system.

Plus, getting around any mandatory system would be entirely too easy; the inept government agency tasked with this rating job would be incapable of keeping up with the myriad ways that will be discovered to subvert any mandatory ratings system.

Dec 29, 2008 - 12:57 pm 35. Alexis:

Please note how the recommendations of the Right Honorable Gentleman from Leigh do not apply to any language other than English. It does not apply to French. It does not apply to Japanese. It does not apply to Arabic. It only applies to English. The Right Honorable Gentleman would not censor anything terrorists would have to say about us so long as it is spoken or written in the language of al-Jazeera, but he would censor anything we have to say about the terrorists if he does not happen to approve of our language.

What is the Right Honorable Gentleman from Leigh attempting to accomplish, mass suicide for the English language? Is he trying to ensure that future writers and thinkers use some language other than English so they may express their ideas without surrendering to his regime of censorship?

Please note that it is possible to say unflattering remarks in a coded manner. For example, you may wish to read the following letter.

Dear Right Honorable Andrew Burnham,

Forcing ulterior conceits knocks you out unintentionally.

Now, read the first letter of each word of the first sentence.

Cheers,

Alexis

Dec 29, 2008 - 1:08 pm 36. njartist:

What have free men to do with the concerns of tyrants.

Dec 29, 2008 - 1:24 pm 37. Sam Hall:

Set up special domains. For example, .XXX for sex sites. Anything could go on those sites with the police prohibited from bringing charges but they could come down hard on those outside the special domains.
It would be simple to setup blocking software to keep the kids out. You could even have it done by your ISP which should work no matter how good on the computer your kids are.

Dec 29, 2008 - 1:30 pm 38. Tony:

We’re going to have The Fairness Doctrine for radio shows, to shut down the one medium not controlled by fanatic lefties, so this seems only natural to try to squeeze the web. Good luck at that!

As for Belmont Club post, I’ve noticed that my posts sometimes go to “moderation” and I can’t figure out if it’s because they have multiple links (say 3) or it’s because I just posted recently (within minutes).

Overall, I’ve found the comments here at the Belmont Club to be among the most civil sites on the web. That’s nice. I love informed argument based on fact and logic, but bickering and personal animosity is for boobs and the increasingly hateful “liberals” among us who are open and considerate of varying viewpoints - as long as all the varying viewpoints are as fanatically liberal as their own.

Hey, have you heard the one about Global Warming? If you don’t believe, you’re a denialist! Heh.

Dec 29, 2008 - 1:35 pm 39. twobyfour:

@ 37. Sam Hall

Great idea. But that is one reason it won’t be implemented. The second one is that pr0n is not what this is about. It is about establishing a state controlled set of rules and their distribution (and expansion if needs to be, without notice), to block out any sites that have been previously tagged by an army of diligent bots.

The tagging (a database of “incorrect” sites) is already going on. You just don’t know about it, but at times some of bots can’t contain their glee that your site/comments/blog would be soon a thing of the past and outright tell you that you’ve been tagged already, they just wait till politbyro gives the signal, to take it down.

Of course, countermeasures aren’t lagging much behind. If TSWHTF, we’d have to form sort of internet samizdat channels and probably use at some point a form of p2p (or rather many2many) data allocation/obscuring.

It is still unsure that their plan would be implemented, but to hope that it won’t is myopic. Better be ready and safe than too late and sorry.

Dec 29, 2008 - 2:35 pm 40. James:

“the government was planning to negotiate with the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to draw up new international rules for English language websites.”

“planning to negotiate” ie they have no idea of Obama is going to persue this folly at all, and are just annoucning it at Christmas to get some publicity. Folly because it clearly fails the first amendment, and is dead on arrival in the US.

For the Australian attempt, see http://www.overclockers.com.au/wiki/Australian_Internet_Filtering

Dec 29, 2008 - 4:50 pm 41. Sam Hall:

twobyfour:

The second one is that pr0n is not what this is about.

I know, but if the problem of kids and pr0n was off the table, they would have a harder time getting John Q Public to buy in.

Dec 29, 2008 - 5:23 pm 42. Michelle Renee:

Tony: Hey, have you heard the one about Global Warming? If you don’t believe, you’re a denialist!

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor.

Dec 29, 2008 - 5:45 pm 43. whiskey:

This is about thought control. Preventing un-PC stuff from being said, particularly about the Tin Pot Messiah.

Dec 29, 2008 - 5:47 pm 44. twobyfour:

@ 43. whiskey

Yep, he’s so fragile… If he is forced to hear some derrogatory remarks about himself, his big ears may fall off under that stress.

Dec 29, 2008 - 5:59 pm 45. peterike:

@James: Folly because it clearly fails the first amendment, and is dead on arrival in the US.

Bwahhh ha ha ha! You think the Democrats care for one blinking second about the First Amendment? Or any OTHER Amendment? You gotta be kidding me.

I think the conjecture that O will avoid tackling the Fairness Doctrine is probably true, at least for a while. It would rile up the tattered remnants of conservatives, and why bother? Talk radio ranted and raved about O, as did the Interwebs, and he won handily. He’s got other fish to fry in the meanwhile, like ramming through Amnesty to ensure his re-election, and then re-re-election (Constitution? What Constitution?). And then there’s that little bit about taking control of large swaths of the economy.

Come to think of it, taking over the web is probably more important than squashing talk radio, because those guys generally just relate what they learn on the web to a larger audience. Kill the source.

As for working around web censorship with P2P or whatever, puh-lease. Most people can barely figure out their web browser.

Dec 29, 2008 - 8:00 pm 46. Tony:

Apropos of nothing, and I guess this should be on another thread, but have you noticed in the video of the airstrikes in Gaza … that familiar deep hole / 200 foot skinny mushroom cloud explosion? And then the video of the snapped meter-square concrete beams pointing downward into a smoking crater?

Remember when Israel bought about 20 dozen bunker-busters a couple of years ago?

Omigot, they’ve been looking over the border, from such close range, for so long, and now there’s those t-shaped black clouds on TV.

Sniper war, writ large.

Dec 29, 2008 - 10:01 pm 47. twobyfour:

@ 45. peterike

As for working around web censorship with P2P or whatever, puh-lease. Most people can barely figure out their web browser.

True. But it can be done as a firefox plugin. The only requirements would be to get the plugin through Tools, Add-ons, install, restart browser. You think that may be too complicated?

Dec 29, 2008 - 10:24 pm 48. Cannoneer No. 4:

we’d have to form sort of internet samizdat channels and probably use at some point a form of p2p (or rather many2many) data allocation/obscuring.

The Resistance will have to migrate from blogs to more secure networks. Civilian Irregular Information Operators will have to improvise, adapt and overcome the regime’s efforts to silence them and keep communicating through the interference, combining Irregular Psychological Operations with Irregular Computer Network Operations in flexible and innovative ways Regulars can’t match.

Study the ehadis’ TTP’s. The Resistance will find some of them applicable.

Dec 30, 2008 - 2:36 am 49. lewy14:

So how does free speech actually get squelched? It’s not hard to put the pieces together.

One piece is some sort of filtering / tagging.

The next piece is Obama’s proposed massive government broadband initiative, which will be popular with many constituencies across the political spectrum.

Now, when the government subsidizes the big pipe, it’s only right that they filter it, right? I mean why should your tax dollars pay for creeps to download pr0n, right? If your want “unrestricted, unregulated” access, you can always pay for it yourself, right? Again, this restriction will find favor across the spectrum.

Subsidized broadband will eventually kill the commercial broadband business model, as the fixed costs of the network are borne by fewer paying subscribers.

Et voila. Pervasive government restriction of information and opinion, all perfectly constitutional.

Pr0n is the bait, but the real aim will be “racism”, “fascism”, etc… all harmful to minors, of course… _crimethink_, in other words.

In fact, the regulated, filtered, subsidized internet will be just as full of pr0nified culture (if not actual porn) - the modern bread and circus - as the current ‘net.

You just won’t find any racist, sexist, fascist sites. Like, you know, The Belmont Club.

Dec 30, 2008 - 2:50 am 50. peterike:

@lewy14 You just won’t find any racist, sexist, fascist sites. Like, you know, The Belmont Club.

Too, too true. And your description of the squelching process sounds depressingly true to life.

Dec 30, 2008 - 7:08 am 51. PiltdownMan:

I keep going back to the “English language websites” boundary.

Alexis #35 noted this earlier, but can we all work with a Belmont Club in a foreign language? Should we be pro-active and ask our host to start thinking of an alternative language?

Yo quiero el Club Belmont en Espanol.

Dec 30, 2008 - 7:46 am 52. MarkB:

BabelFish Instant Translation

It is a Firefox plugin.

As in Babelfish used in Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Universe by Douglas Adams.

Dec 30, 2008 - 8:18 am 53. Voltimand:

I take all this as a statement of Euro opinions re: the kind of Obama administration Obama is going to set up. Already Obama has disappointed his rabid left supporters. We can’t of course depend on him to continue this line of appointments for the simple reason we can’t depend on Obama to do/not to do anything because we have nothing to depend upon because he has said nothing at all in the whole wide world about who he is, what he is, what he’s done in the past, what he’s going to do in the future, and whether or not he’s a natural-born U. S. citizen.

Part of me says “Yeah, let Obama do this, let him do it right out in the open.” Anyone who reads this site and ones with similar standpoints know that all of us who wouldn’t have been caught dead voting for Obama for dog catcher are simply waiting for him to make his moves once he’s inaugurated. Now, either he does or he does not, and in either case he’s at that point set himseslf up as a political target. Once inaugurated the time is up for him to play coy with the rest of the world. Act or not act, he becomes the cynosure of all eyes–and all attacks.

The Brit in question here is a negligible quantity. His saying that this is not about censorship in the obvious belief that anyone out there is going to take him seriously gives us the measure of this Euro trash.

Dec 30, 2008 - 8:22 am 54. MarkB:

Welcome to the Belmont Club!

Добро пожаловать к клубу Belmont!

Good to grant to the club Of belmont!

Oops!

Luckily we have people here who are better at Russian to English than Babelfish!

Dec 30, 2008 - 8:23 am 55. Cannoneer No. 4:

Elmont-bay Lub-kay in Ig-pay Atin-lay.

O kami ay maaaring gamitin lamang ng translator software.

משתמש אחר מאשר אלפבית לטיני הגפה יגרום לנו למטה אפילו יותר קשה

Dec 30, 2008 - 8:27 am 56. Peter Boston:

Andy Burnham should be a joke but consider the so called Human Rights Commissions in Canada and how they have so recklessly trampled on freedom of speech. Impoverishing citizens for pointing out that the emperor’s wardrobe is no joke.

Dec 30, 2008 - 8:45 am 57. geoffb:

I keep going back to the “English language websites” boundary.

Well of course English is the favored language of all the worlds “Evil White Male Oppressor Class” type people so it must be the first language controlled. Hebrew will be the second in line if it is still spoken by then.

Dec 30, 2008 - 8:46 am 58. Michelle Renee:

The Israeli army announced yesterday the creation of its own YouTube channel, through which it will disseminate footage of precision bombing operations in the Gaza Strip.

This is a good one, especially at the end when the ammo dump begins having secondary explosions which are an especially good indicator of a hit.

Dec 30, 2008 - 8:50 am 59. twobyfour:

Crypt/decrypt. Simple. You’d need a plugin (obtained through registration) to decrypt (receiving decrypted text).

Type in English (or whatever)
Server crypts before storing
W/o plugin you get a gibberish.

Of course, another thing is that domains may be blocked. No big, an entirely independent DNS system can be set up, with zones being stored and updated on your local machine (zone = IP + domain).

Dec 30, 2008 - 9:31 am 60. twobyfour:

Blocked IPs/IP ranges would be a problem. Some form of proxy system would resolve that (Chinese bloggers have a bit of experience with that).

Dec 30, 2008 - 9:38 am 61. twobyfour:

@ programmer:

When people think of the internet, they are usually talking about the world wide web. This, however, is just a program that rides on top of TCP/IP, using the creaky old HTTP protocol. One of my first essays into internet programming was to write a distributed file transfer program using socket layer communication, using my own protocol layer (it was pretty crappy, but it worked). Simple encryption of the data packets made it difficult to filter the transmissions. Now, as a practical matter, if the TCP/IP protocol were to be taken down or compromised, it is not too difficult to invent your own. Again, as part of an early project for an airline company, I helped invent a competing protocol stack against TCP/IP, however, it just became easier to use what every one else was already using. The point of all of this is, as has already been stated above, but perhaps not to the depth necessary, is trying to monitor and filter the internet is like trying to dam up a river with a fish net. The water just keeps going through. A bureaucrat would be happy with it, a few fish would be caught, but most fish would slip through with almost no effort.

All good points, but as someone said, people have difficulty to figger out a browser.

So, using the system as is, but with some minor tweaks would probably be enough.

If they run content searches, encryption would do.
If they start blocking domain names, a parallel DNS would kick in.
If they block IP ranges, then routing through proxies would be in order.

But I think that what they would try to do first is to pressure hosting companies to take off line sites that they don’t like. Some would comply, some won’t. I may setup few server (or more) for sites that got sacked. Not that Canuckistan is a shining example of freedom, but in comparison with what may happen south of the border…

Dec 30, 2008 - 1:37 pm 62. Giant Jelly Fish Killer:

Once the proposed rating structure is adopted by Congress and signed into law - it’s over and done. Like any form of regulation of industry - this will create compliance costs -which would be an effective barrier to entry to someone wanting to start a website dealing with subject matter, like, say: “Why Islam is not, and has never, ever, ever, been, nor ever will be, a Religion of Peace.” [Which is why large industry is not per se opposed to regulation as it keeps out smaller competitors; the New York Times will certainly hire the lawyers to ensure its website gets a good rating].

The rating system will NOT be temporary. The adminstrative agency tasked with enforcing the regs - let’s call ‘em the INTERNET CONTENT REGULATION AGENCY (ICRA) will have a vested interest in finding problems, asking for money to address those problems, perpetuate its existence - and thus forever keeping a vigilant eye out for dangerous internet content (DIC).

Just a bad idea all around. Some examples of what could go wrong:

Gedankenexperiment I:

(Warning lots of third person for comedic effect).

Giant Jelly Fish Killer sets up a “Kook Right Wing Website” ™ — or(KRWW) in ICRA nomenclature.

However, under ICRA regulations CFR 1023.23-Z, he is required to fill out and submit forms - RA - 23010A, 231010B, to get a rating. Some bureaucrat needs to review it. Three years later, he gets a DKRWW (Dangerous Kook Right Wing Web) website rating (WR). He wants to fight the DKRWW WR. He hires a lawyer. Matter gets kicked up to an ALJ (adminstrative law judge) who works for the ICRA and eats lunch with the head of the RWWA DEP (Right wing website Department) of the ICRA that gave him the DKRWW WR. Needless to say, judgment in not rendered his favor and agencies determination upheld on an “absolute discretion of agency” standard. Administrative remedies exhausted, he files an appeal in federal court. This get’s kinda expensive. Giant Jelly Fish Killer puts off retirement until age 95. His wife is really pissed off at him.

The above being true, Giant Jelly Fish Killer has to consider it just * might * be better to just skip the whole website idea. So instead he trys to put the fact that he is no longer living in a free society out of his head. He watches a lot of The Monarch of Glen on PBS.

This what crazy libs like to call a chilling effect. This is probably what will happen.

Gedankenexperiment II:

But, say, Giant Jelly Fish Killer says screw the ICRA - and their poncy oppressive regulations - he’s a free born man of the USA. He sets up a site on an independant DNS system with proxys and plug ins and what not with the aid of his sidekick “Micro” (who was not killed by Jigsaw in Punisher: Warzone - no matter what it looked like). Now he is engagaging in behavior with criminal sanctions. Speech and thought has been criminalized. Super fantastic!

So, one day, the enforcement arm of the ICRA - the ICRA JBT (Jack Booted Thugs) come and knocks down the door - with a warrant for his arrest for the crime of operating a website in contravention of ICRA policy - forcing our hero to ask himself as the front door blows off its hinges and a flash-bang detonates: “How am I gonna come - hands on my head or the trigger of my gun?” Gun fight ensues while Johnny Cash’s “When the Man Comes Around” thunders in the background - sorta like in the end of Season One of the Sarah Connor Chronicles. Not being an unstoppable killing machine from the future, and unable to get the safety of his shotgun, our hero succumbs to a hail of bullets and truncheons before Johnny can start signing about Virgins and Wicks or Wigs? (which, truth be told, he never quite got anyway always meant to to Wiki it but……).

Mrs. Giant Jelly Fish Killer is upset that that there is blood all over her nice hardwood floor. She is somewhat relieved as she does not have to endure husband’s right wing diatribes about “Obama’s Police State”, and questionable enthusiasm Cash’s later Rick Rubin produced material.

The above being true, Giant Jelly Fish Killer decides that it * might * not be worth it. Instead, he watches a lot of Monarch of the Glen on PBS, while muttering to himself about Edmund Burke, single malt scotch, and Dawn Steele. Eventually, one of his neighboors reports him to Obama’s Domestic Security Force JBT for having a large stash of National Reviews and reading the Belmont Club. Door gets knocked down. Gunfight ensues.

***

Ok. Some hyperbole, I know - but they keep chipping away at our freedoms. It is real. They never stop and it is really starting to piss me off.

Dec 30, 2008 - 1:42 pm 63. maineman:

Or, perhaps, the serious resistance movement that began its development on November 4, 2008 and has built up steam, stealth, and a stomach for aggressive interaction by the time the King Bullgoose Loony makes his move gathers a swat team of Timothy McVie types to begin the task of severing the government’s cables.

Dec 30, 2008 - 4:03 pm 64. programmer:

twobyfour,

Thanks for bumping my poorly placed comment. Better treatment than it probably deserved, and I agree with your point about browsers.

At this juncture, I think the best form of resistance against this type of “creeping censorship” is to be loud, articulate, and persuasive. Even those who wish to deny others the right to speak out do not want to lose their right to speak out. And the majority of American’s, in my opinion, are very wary of too much government intervention, they do not trust the government anymore, and that is a handle upon which “We few, we happy few, we band of brothers” can push and push and push. Oh well, my wife says it’s time for my meds again…..

Dec 30, 2008 - 4:35 pm 65. Michelle Renee:

France and Great Britain will present a proposal on Tuesday aimed at forcing a cease-fire on Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip. A senior government source in Jerusalem said the initiative would be presented at a emergency session of the European Union’s foreign ministers in Paris.

I’m sure the IDF and Hamas are quaking in their boots at the thought of the EU “forcing” a cease fire on them.

Dec 30, 2008 - 6:29 pm 66. twobyfour:

http://www.voltairenet.org/article158900.html

Dec 30, 2008 - 7:38 pm 67. fred:

The EU is a limp you-know-what that needs a triple dose of Viagra. Its pronouncements and declarations will have zero effect on the IDF and on Hamas. The weird thing is that they (the EU)actually think they’re relevant and that they can make people pay attention.

Dear EU Commissioners, Assembly, and various bureaucratic offices,

How did your five years of negotiating with the Mullahs work out for ya?

Dec 30, 2008 - 8:29 pm 68. Steynianism 302 « Free Canuckistan!:

[...] UH-OH– DO-GOODER ALERT: “British MP Andy Burnham plans to work with Obama administration to establish international [...]

Dec 31, 2008 - 10:17 am 69. Dan Kurt:

re: #20. Staring In Disbelief:”I think Obama is too smart to pick that fight [ the Fairness Doctrine (or some internet equivalent)].

You assume Obama is smart. Smooth, slick yes but smart only time will tell. As HST said years ago “the buck stops here,” ZerO will be tested for his intelligence for probably the first time later this month, no more affirmative action after January 20th, 2009.

Dan Kurt

Jan 1, 2009 - 11:48 am 70. maineman:

Yes, Dan. I’ve been struck by how stupid every component of his worldview and general thinking is. Granted, he’s articulate, and he’s managed to say mostly the right things at the right time, which I assume has involved massive help from his handlers. But on everything from the economy (”it turns out that the way to grow an economy is from the bottom up”) to the Constitution to human nature to history to the make-up of the real America to how many states there are, he’s stunningly out to lunch.

This is a man who seems to be remarkably lacking in common sense. Maybe it’s the infection of his thinking by leftism, but you have to be impressed by how consistently wrong he has been whenever he’s spoken his own mind. That tells me that there are significant weaknesses, or at least mediocrities, in important areas of his cognitive-intellectual profile. He reminds me of one of those professors whose limitations only become apparent after you’ve listened to 5 or 10 of his lectures.

Jan 1, 2009 - 1:18 pm 71. Bureaucrats Wanting To Regulate The Internet « 36 Chambers - The Legendary Journeys: Execution to the max!:

[...] Filed under: Curmudgeonliness, Enemies, Specific Stupidity — Kevin Feasel @ 8:09 am A British MP wants “standards of decency” to apply to the Internet.

Jan 5, 2009 - 5:12 am

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.