This just means that officials will use copyright to censor information which is embarrassing. For example, if something appears on Wikileaks which they don't approve of they can just claim that the leaked document is under copyright and block the site.
For example, in America today, here are some of the things censored: kiddie pr0n (including fictional text); pirated copyrighted works; works inciting the violation of laws; works describing how to violate laws (e.g., how to make drugs).
Every nation in the world has mandatory censorship. The only variable is what speech is subject to it.
The sad thing was the level of ignorance shown in the debate. While I wouldn't expect an MP to be an expert in everything, the least they could do is seek out experts and remember that lobbyists are not impartial experts.
The scary thing is this level of ignorance probably applies in all debates.
Or at least all debates were the MPs aren't directly interested. Debates about legal immunities, tax breaks and such stuff for MPs probably have a higher level of discourse.
> the least they could do is seek out experts and remember that lobbyists are not impartial experts.
Note that experts aren't impartial either. Yes, they may be impartial on some things (such as the appropriate length of packets), but those are rarely the issue in the political sphere.
For example, the 2 degree "threshold" in the AGW debate is completely artificial. There's nothing scientifically significant about 2 degrees warmer (1.5 and 2.5 are more and less of the same) yet look at how the "experts" talk about it.
Here in the USA, the GOP is learning the same lesson. They didn't mind the power that GWB consolidated in the Executive. But now that the DEMs control that office, the GOP isn't very happy with sleeping in their own bed.
(that's a lot of metaphors I'm mixing in just a short post!)
16 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 43.4 ms ] threadhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/08/intern...
For example, in America today, here are some of the things censored: kiddie pr0n (including fictional text); pirated copyrighted works; works inciting the violation of laws; works describing how to violate laws (e.g., how to make drugs).
Every nation in the world has mandatory censorship. The only variable is what speech is subject to it.
The scary thing is this level of ignorance probably applies in all debates.
Note that experts aren't impartial either. Yes, they may be impartial on some things (such as the appropriate length of packets), but those are rarely the issue in the political sphere.
For example, the 2 degree "threshold" in the AGW debate is completely artificial. There's nothing scientifically significant about 2 degrees warmer (1.5 and 2.5 are more and less of the same) yet look at how the "experts" talk about it.
Here in the USA, the GOP is learning the same lesson. They didn't mind the power that GWB consolidated in the Executive. But now that the DEMs control that office, the GOP isn't very happy with sleeping in their own bed.
(that's a lot of metaphors I'm mixing in just a short post!)