U.N. Calls for Internet Censorship

[Chesten_Hesten]

The U.N. has reported that VAWG, violence against women and girls, on the internet has reached epic proportions. They have put their foot down and announced that internet bullies must be stopped! The article goes on to state that providers should supervise all content to make sure nobody is getting harassed.

This would make ISP's and social media sites like Facebook/Twitter responsible for what their users do. What would constitute harassment? If I say F you bitch to the wrong person would the U.N. want me punished accordingly? Basically the U.N. is calling for the word police.

This kinda shit will continue to gain traction, as the internet becomes viewed as a public service which everyone deserves, like net neutrality. You know, that shit must be protected.

 

[Pem123]

the UN has declared war on freedom of speech.

i mean they maybe can make the argument if it real violence threat, but something like "U suck" how can this be acceptable.

 

[Toco]

cyber VAWG

ffs

fuck the UN

stop regulating everything and everyone

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I am not against more education or the end of child porn circulation. I'm just saying money talks.

UN calls for this while at the same time putting Saudi Arabia in charge of human rights? It might be a really slick strategy on their part, I don't know about the inner workings over there.

But that is what is raising concern on my part. Note that I don't claim to know everything.

UN call on Saudi Arabia is bad. But I don't see why people would oppose regulation in this area which is PROVEN will lower the rates of abuse and immoral websites and activity. I find it amusing how people want regulation in other areas of life on the justification that it is PROVEN to lower instances of crime and yet oppose it here.

No other explanation than fear mongering (understandable I suppose) but not practical.

What does this have to do with conspiracy theories? The question (which you did not answer btw) was how it would help the cause if you had less of a voice. Im asking on the basis of it's efficiency. I have no problem with regulations where they belong but it begs the question as to why if it is not needed. Like do you feel nothing is safe without government regulation?

and ROFL @ wanting to even be caught dead playing a "wannabe liberal"

This belief that more regulation of something which is out of control and allows criminals and evil doers to operate freely. I just find it amusing that people buy into the belief that corporations, businesses, banks, etc need to be regulated because they have corrupt people and or

the UN has declared war on freedom of speech.

i mean they maybe can make the argument if it real violence threat, but something like "U suck" how can this be acceptable.

It's not.

I don't see how anyone can stand for regulation in other walks of life which effect people but are done for the 'greater good' and yet simultaneously stand against this.

 

[LionExMachina]

Brought to you by the very organization that saw fit to give Saudi Arabia (The Champion Poo-Devil of subjugating women, giving people thousands of lashes for blogging and beheading people for taking part in protests) the chair of their Human Rights Panel.

If the UN really cared about women's rights they'd be calling for a cultural and economic boycott of that shitbag country.

 

[Madmick]

Great example of why America commonly ignores the UN, and is morally right to do so.

 

[Shokushu Goukan]

Sounds about right for their new human rights head, Saudi Arabia.

except for the part about giving a shit about violence against women.

 

[Corin7hian]

UN call on Saudi Arabia is bad. But I don't see why people would oppose regulation in this area which is PROVEN will lower the rates of abuse and immoral websites and activity. I find it amusing how people want regulation in other areas of life on the justification that it is PROVEN to lower instances of crime and yet oppose it here.

No other explanation than fear mongering (understandable I suppose) but not practical.



This belief that more regulation of something which is out of control and allows criminals and evil doers to operate freely. I just find it amusing that people buy into the belief that corporations, businesses, banks, etc need to be regulated because they have corrupt people and or



It's not.

I don't see how anyone can stand for regulation in other walks of life which effect people but are done for the 'greater good' and yet simultaneously stand against this.

Your idea appeals to an uncompromising hardliner. The idea that because it's good for one area in life therefore it must be for another is intellectually dishonest to me. Perhaps I'm missing something but how has it been proven to help?

 

[MusterX]

Who can decide the rules on such a ridiculous idea? How much of what goes on in the War Room would be considered a violation of the word cops? It makes me think of the book burners from the ancient past and even into the 1500-1600's. Don't like what is being said then destroy it, only this time instead of books, its typed words on a screen.

 

[Stoic1]

 

[MusterX]

No doubt. I hate saying when I went to school I walked in snow, uphill both ways but when I was growing up if you went to someone and cried that you were offended they would have smirked and said welcome to planet earth pal.

When did we decide it wasn't alright to be offended? I think the political correctness model of thinking started in the 80's.....maybe. I remember back then was when we started saying mail carrier, not mail man, and flight attendant, not stewardess. Then it just took off into a hundred other things and now people talk about "triggers." Shit is a joke.

If you hurt my feelings maybe my feelings needed to be hurt, maybe they didn't, but its alright to be offended or have hurt feelings.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Which is why we should. With proper checks and balances and internet regulation we can address the sickos and problem makers. Internet regulation is no different than say financial regulation or other types of regulation people desire.

Freedom of speech and expression trump any desires for censorship in the name of easing others anxieties.

Who is to decide what is the harmful speech? Who would you let decide FOR YOU what is fit for you to read and know. Is their any person that you can think of that you would let decided for you what is fit for you to read or to say? The regulations you support say their must be such a person, who would you nominate?

 

[86'd]

Feverishly awaiting IDL's response to this....

 

[Hellboy31]

The UN is a joke. Time to kick them out of NYC for good.

 

[Shokushu Goukan]

Don't like what is being said then destroy it, only this time instead of books, its typed words on a screen.

This is what PC culture's ultimate goal is. To not offend anyone by reducing free will to nothing. There is only one choice and that is the PC choice. Get ready to get hounded and fired if you don't.

 

[Chinballs]

This is what PC culture's ultimate goal is. To not offend anyone by reducing free will to nothing. There is only one choice and that is the PC choice. Get ready to get hounded and fired if you don't.

I don't see in what universe equality and compassion will meld with subjugation.

 

[sir loin]

good, the hate speech against women on the internet has been out of control for a long time now

putting onus on the business companies who own the medium is pretty smart too, this way the entities who own blogs or message boards will be forced to self police instead of having some government agency do it

 

[Dalarna3]

Didn't the UN just give Saudi Arabia chairmanship of a human rights committee or something like that? The UN is a joke and embodies everything that's wrong with modern liberals.

 

[IDL]

Sounds about right for their new human rights head, Saudi Arabia.

lol no kidding. The UN doesn't give a shit about violence against women.

They do care about power and control though, and they will use violence against women to further political objectives.

Apparently Germany is working with facebook to sensor xenophobic comments also in response to Merkels opening to the refugees and migrants. The only reason is because it goes against their political interests to have dissent.

What they will do, as they always do, is to try to shoe in an agenda under the guise of something righteous, with the intent on establishing ever expanding controls.

Once they have the infrastructure and acceptance in place for censorship of one kind or another, then it is much easier to creep into more and more areas which is the intent the entire time.

 

[Chinballs]

lol no kidding. The UN doesn't give a shit about violence against women.

They do care about power and control though, and they will use violence against women to further political objectives.

Apparently Germany is working with facebook to sensor xenophobic comments also in response to Merkels opening to the refugees and migrants. The only reason is because it goes against their political interests to have dissent.

What they will do, as they always do, is to try to shoe in an agenda under the guise of something righteous, with the intent on establishing ever expanding controls.

Once they have the infrastructure and acceptance in place for censorship of one kind or another, then it is much easier to creep into more and more areas which is the intent the entire time.

Well they need to do more than working to censore facebook then. If I know my internet nerds correctly, censoring a place like that will only make them leave it.

And maybe that's what is needed then, so facebook themselves can end up in a fight with censorship for loss of traffic.