Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Web Browser Image/Video Content Filter
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/green-light-for-laws-to-block-child-porn-bestiality-websites/story-e6frf7l6-1225810943334 ^ | 21-12-09 | Chris

Posted on 12/20/2009 10:37:51 AM PST by chrismac

It's possible to legislate so that Web Browsers have to use an IMG/EMBED/OBJECT attribute that defines the promiscuity or Content Filter level of each image or video, between 1 and 10 or a similar rating, in the HTML code of each website.

Websites which don't include this attribute for each image/video would be blocked by gateway internet filters - similar to what Squidguard or IPCop-URLfilter do, or the Australian filter, and the filters can limit the level of promiscuous images for selected domains. Child porn, violence, beastiality, etc can then be most readily filtered out, particularly for children.

If websites don't meet the image/video ratings of the most used blacklists (following) then the gateway filters might blacklist the whole domain, rather than rely on blocking just a certain level of promiscuity. http://www.squidguard.org/blacklists.html http://cri.univ-tlse1.fr/cgi-bin/squidguard_modify.cgi

Those websites which don't rate their images/videos, using the IMG/EMBED/OBJECT attribute, can have their text passed to the browser, while the images aren't passed (perhaps having place holder images, though that's not essential).

So if you were in the US, then websites from Netherlands, etc, those with non-compliant content, would still be viewable as html text, but their images/videos wouldn't make it through the internet filter, since they're not rated images/videos, ie are noncompliant with the new web standard requiring an IMG/EMBED/OBJECT rating attribute.

Additionally, the Apache webserver (and others), most commonly used, could also check the Browser ID string which includes a new Content Filter attribute, and only serve images/videos to the Browser that comply with the promiscuity setting the end user sets, using the mentioned IMG/EMBED/OBJECT attribute to determine which images/videdos comply. Again, this wouldn't stop the passing of html text, and is in addition to global filters.

Write me about any problems, there probably are potential solutions; if you want to be anonymous use the WriteToUs form at god-help.org .


TOPICS: Computers/Internet
KEYWORDS: browser; content; filter; internet

1 posted on 12/20/2009 10:37:52 AM PST by chrismac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: chrismac

Excellent! I will get paid to redesign websites to comply with the new law.

I’m still waiting for the ADA regulations to include web accessibility mandates. Boy howdy, I’ll make a bundle on that!


2 posted on 12/20/2009 10:42:19 AM PST by Jeff Chandler (:: The government will do for health care what it did for real estate. ::)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrismac
Write me about any problems

Didn't Obama surrender control of the internet?

3 posted on 12/20/2009 10:43:11 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrismac

look at NoScript.


4 posted on 12/20/2009 10:46:42 AM PST by old curmudgeon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrismac
So if you were in the US, then websites from Netherlands, etc, those with non-compliant content, would still be viewable as html text, but their images/videos wouldn't make it through the internet filter, since they're not rated images/videos, ie are noncompliant with the new web standard requiring an IMG/EMBED/OBJECT rating attribute.

Or else just switch to encrypted/secure websites. If I wanted the government to tell me what to look at I would move to Saudi Arabia.

5 posted on 12/20/2009 10:50:39 AM PST by KarlInOhio (Gore is the fifth horseman of the apocalypse. He rides an icy horse bringing cold wherever he goes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrismac

This probably won’t work. Most sites will provide the metadata and just lie.

And it smacks of Nanny-statism. Who will decide if Michelangelo’s David is porn or art?


6 posted on 12/20/2009 10:54:15 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce

/mark


7 posted on 12/20/2009 10:55:18 AM PST by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

If they supply the metadata and lie about image/video ratings, their whole site get’s blacklisted - eventually, until they comply, (perhaps using the form for those blacklists mentioned/linked to). It’s a simple matter for a publicly elected body to review sites that don’t conform with “no-child-porn, beastiality, violence”. That body would be accountable to the public for websites blacklisted.


8 posted on 12/20/2009 11:07:40 AM PST by chrismac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chrismac

>>If they supply the metadata and lie about image/video ratings, their whole site get’s blacklisted - eventually, until they comply, (perhaps using the form for those blacklists mentioned/linked to). It’s a simple matter for a publicly elected body to review sites that don’t conform with “no-child-porn, beastiality, violence”. That body would be accountable to the public for websites blacklisted.<<

You don’t seem to have a handle on the problem. Your self-styled “Internet Morality Police” would have to review thousand, maybe millions of sites. The numbers would be overwhelming. And of course, there would have to be appeals, all kinds of gray areas clarified, etc.

Not only fascist, but unworkable.


9 posted on 12/20/2009 11:17:19 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Reviewing websites is already done by the mentioned blacklist maintainers, links previously provided, its a simple matter for a publicly elected body to review sites being put on the blacklist for non-compliance. even libtards can see this.
Entirely workable, is already partly in use by schools, and soon to be in use in Australia in a variant form.


10 posted on 12/20/2009 11:48:48 AM PST by chrismac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: chrismac
Reviewing websites is already done by the mentioned blacklist maintainers, links previously provided, its a simple matter for a publicly elected body to review sites being put on the blacklist for non-compliance. even libtards can see this.

I don't know about libtards, but fascists sure can.

Entirely workable, is already partly in use by schools, and soon to be in use in Australia in a variant form.

Schools don't determine what I, an adult US Citizen, can or can't see on the Internet. They can and should err on the side of caution.

You want a world-elected body? We have one, it is called the UN and it is the most corrupt organization in the history of the world.

You want to try to establish a blacklist on the world? You are as nutty as you are power-hungry.

11 posted on 12/20/2009 11:53:17 AM PST by freedumb2003 (Communism comes to America: 1/20/2009. Keep your powder dry, folks. Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: chrismac
The Federal Government is pushing ahead with its controversial plan to filter the internet, saying illegal material can be blocked "with 100 per cent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed".

Not to be too pessimistic, but just based upon common knowledge of recent history, has there ever been any government, anywhere, at any time that could do anything (other than corruption) with "100 percent accuracy"? Government databases are the most error prone and misused. Why will this one be any different?

Labor will introduce legislation next year requiring all service providers to ban "refused classification" material hosted on overseas servers.

Let's see. Pass legislation and expect the rest of the world to comply with it? Build a wall so the rest of the world will comply, and then be amazed at just how that wall has eliminated the entire rest of the world from your little kingdom, with all the economic devastation that it entails by telling the rest of the world to comply with your little law or FOAD. Yup, that'll work. And like the Chinese have found, people will still find a way to get around that wall. What next? Kill the violators?

Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says RC material includes "child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence and the detailed instruction of crime and drug use".

Translation: First we start by banning all those things that we could convince a majority to go along with, then little by little, add in "Christians, biblical references, conservative political speech, any opposition speech..." Well, you get the idea. The list of 'banned' materials will multiply exponentially.

"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."-- Ayn Rand

"Most Australians acknowledge there is some internet content which is not acceptable in any civilised society," Senator Conroy said in Melbourne after giving the mandatory filter the green light.

Therefore every Australian will comply with what I think is best for them. Whether they like it or not.

"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material."

Yes, after all, it's for the poor chilrun. Weren't we warned about this like, say, maybe 230 years ago?

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power... There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
-- Daniel Webster

The list of banned sites will be maintained by an independent body "at arm's length from the government".

Ah, yes, the "independent body at arm's length from the government". Bet we can all think of at least one colossal failure of that kind of setup, can't we?

Senator Conroy said the list would be "compiled through a public complaints mechanism", but the government would add sites containing "known child abuse material" obtained from "highly regarded international agencies".

Ummm, wait! Just where did this "independent agency" suddenly disappear to? I thought that he said something about being "at arm's length" from the government. Then maybe that wasn't quite truthful. Which in common circles is called... wait for it... A LIE!

The Australian Communications and Media Authority is now responsible for issuing take-down notices for black-listed content hosted in Australia.

Pray tell, is that "an independent body at arm's length from the government"? Has it been "100 percent accurate with neglible impact"? Please Senator, tell us how that has been working, or how this proposal will work even better?

The Government yesterday released the results of a filtering trial, claiming it proved blocking sites was technically feasible.

News Flash: Germany 1933. The government has released the results of a cleansing trial that proved that it was technically feasible to cleanse entire races or religions from the country. Poison gas contractors gearing up for economic boom. Film at eleven.

Need I continue? Unfortunately this is just Australia now, but this will be coming to a city, state or country near you. Soon.

Sieg Heil, Senator Conroy!

12 posted on 12/20/2009 12:31:19 PM PST by hadit2here ("Most men would rather die than think. Many do." - Bertrand Russell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrismac
I'm sure you won't have any problem at all with Anton Szandor LaVey's fine organization making all the decisions on what YOU personally will be allowed to view on the internet.

No? Then what about turning all of your surfing decisions over to Kevin Jennings lovely organization? After all, "Kevin Jennings, GLSEN’s founder, is recognized as a leader in both the education and civil rights communities."

Hmmmm, not quite the type that YOU would want regulating what YOU are able to access, read, view, see or hear. Right?

Then WTF gives you the libtard, fascist notion that YOU or your organization should be the arbiters of what the rest of US view or read? What makes you think that YOUR view of God or morality is the same as mine? Or anyone else's for that matter?

Maybe you forgot that a bunch of rebellious renegades pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" to setup this little backwater experiment in Freedom. [And many, if not most, of them lost the first two while never giving up the third.] Which, based on THEIR principles has become the greatest nation on the face of the earth and in the history of mankind.Please forgive me if I continue to have this retarded and seemingly out of date notion that "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both".

And also please forgive me if I don't feel at all comfortable having someone like YOU, or whatever organization you are affiliated with, claim to want to protect me from things you find or determine to be "objectionable". If I wanted that kind of "protection", I could easily move to any muslim or communist/fascist country and enjoy that "protection". I neither desire nor will I accept your "protection" of my morals.

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814

"Freedom is fragile and elusive, for rarely does the appreciation of it exceed the pleasure of being able to tell others what to do."
-Terry Rossio, screenwriter

13 posted on 12/20/2009 1:36:05 PM PST by hadit2here ("Most men would rather die than think. Many do." - Bertrand Russell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hadit2here

As well as an additional attribute for IMG/EMBED/OBJECT, we can require an attribute in the HTML BODY header which gives an overall Content Filter rating. Absence of this would cause the documents images/videos to not be passed by the internet filter, or browser.

Those who want the whole of society to practise their published immorality, saying nothing is objectionable about child porn, violence, or beastiality, really have little to contribute, and freedoms of such is akin to freedom of the violent/embezzelers or thieves/and those with little regard for others. The right to publish such materials isn’t freedom but chaos. Rights go hand-in-hand with responsibilties in civilized nations.

A public body of disciplined people, such as judges/police/ JP’s/teachers/& other pillars of the community/s, who understand that rights-and-responsibilities are partners, would oversee the blacklisting of websites that publish chaos as though it were acceptable.


14 posted on 12/20/2009 3:11:34 PM PST by chrismac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003
Who will decide if Michelangelo’s David is porn or art?

Why, John Ashcroft of course. Silly you.

15 posted on 12/20/2009 3:55:16 PM PST by Moltke (DOPE will get you 4 to 8 in the Big House - HOPE will get you 4 to 8 in the White House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chrismac

And pretty soon after, any of your “conservative” comments will be filtered, and the sites where they are posted blacklisted.

You gullible fool.


16 posted on 12/20/2009 4:01:01 PM PST by Moltke (DOPE will get you 4 to 8 in the Big House - HOPE will get you 4 to 8 in the White House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: chrismac

No thanks.

Next!


17 posted on 12/20/2009 4:01:33 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sit-rep; Squantos; Eaker; humblegunner
similar to what Squidguard

I tried Squidguard. All kinds of squid porn still got through.

18 posted on 12/20/2009 4:03:56 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
All kinds of squid porn still got through.

I never look at that stuff.

19 posted on 12/20/2009 4:05:42 PM PST by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: chrismac; Larry Lucido; humblegunner

Will it filter out fascist posts like this?


20 posted on 12/20/2009 5:06:00 PM PST by Eaker (Where I'm from, "Gang Colors" is Realtree and Mossy Oak. You know what I'm saying hoss. Rule.308.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: chrismac
...we can require...

Do you even read what you write? Is your reading comprehension so lacking that you do not understand the meaning of those words?

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
-- Justice Louis Brandeis (1928)

The more I read what you write, the more I feel that Justice Brandeis had people like you in mind.

Those who want the whole of society to practise their published immorality, saying nothing is objectionable about child porn, violence, or beastiality, really have little to contribute, and freedoms of such is akin to freedom of the violent/embezzelers or thieves/and those with little regard for others. The right to publish such materials isn’t freedom but chaos. Rights go hand-in-hand with responsibilties in civilized nations.

Again, do you lack so greatly in reading comprehension that you cannot even see what you are advocating? Do you have even the most rudimentary understanding of the concept of "personal responsibility"? Nowhere do I see "Those who want the whole of society to practise their published immorality." Are there objectionable things out there in the big bad world? Sure. Should we eliminate everything that some busybody like you feels is "objectionable"? What about the cartoons of Mohamhead? A bunch of towel head sand monkeys rioted and killed because the publication of them was "objectionable" to them. So you are advocating that everything that the mooslimes find objectionable should be eradicated from the earth? Isn't that the same thing you're claiming to want to do with something you find objectionable?

Just because you would hand over that power to determine what is "objectionable" to "A public body of disciplined people, such as judges/police/ JP’s/teachers/& other pillars of the community/s" doesn't mean it's any less of an infringement upon the freedom of anyone who doesn't share your or this socalled "public body's" opinion. Infringement on others' freedom is still infringement, whether it is you, your organization or this "public body". Quod Est Demonstrandum

The right to publish such materials isn’t freedom but chaos.

Many of the world's fascists and dictators happily share that opinion with you. King George was probably echoing that sentiment as the founders of this country were publishing that little document called "The Declaration of Independence". Heretics! Blasphemers! Wanting to promulgate CHAOS in my nice little kingdom where everyone MUST do MY bidding!

By the way, who died and made YOU king? And just who exactly is going to "select" this blue ribbon "body of disciplined people"? You? Your organization, god-help.org? Ummmm, what if a lot of people don't approve of those selections? And even after that "disciplined body" is selected, who's going to watch the watchers? Who's going to make sure that the free speech exhibited on FR isn't determined to be advocating "violence" or is the equivalent to "pornography"? And shut down worldwide?

Better still, who's going to watch that "disciplined body" to make sure they don't decide that YOU and YOUR organization isn't allowed to "practise their published immorality" and shut you down? Or send you to the Gulag? Or worse? Oh, but I guess it's OK for YOU to determine what is "right" for anyone else to read, see, hear or think. But I'm sure that it would be instantly "objectionable" to YOU when someone takes offense at what YOU think, read, see or hear. At that point, I'm sure that you wouldn't agree with their decision that "Rights go hand-in-hand with responsibilties in civilized nations" requiring YOU to be the one suffering the censorship.

I don't see anyone advocating-- excuse me, "saying nothing is objectionable about child porn, violence, or bestiality" (yeah, check the spelling before you pick up your torches) as you claim. I do see people advocating freedom and personal responsibility to choose what they wish, which you appear to want to use to cloak your totalitarian arguments with.

"In political matters feeling often decides more correctly than reason."
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, p. 173

I'm sure you FEEL strongly about these things that digust you. Unfortunately, cloaking your fascist ideas of suppression with religious based trappings only goes to accentuate your lack of reason.

If I thought you actually had a modicum of reading comprehension that wasn't blurred by your religious zeal, I'd recommend that you do some research on the psychology of "defense mechanisms". I've found that those like yourself who are so strongly invested in the suppression of something they find objectionable usually fall into one or more of the classic descriptions of those mechanisms. Liberals are constantly exemplifying "projection", or what they accuse others of doing is exactly what they themselves are doing or desire to do. Religious zealots crusading against things like porn or sexual things are usually classic cases of reaction formation, which occurs when a person's mind turns an unacceptable feeling or desire into its complete opposite. Your extreme preoccupation with and strident condemnation of porn, violence or bestiality, which is marked by your absolute incapacity to understand the fascist/totalitarian principles that you advocate against it, is a classic example of reaction formation. You seem to have SO MUCH emotion invested in eradicating these things, not from YOUR life, but from EVERYONE else's also. By the most draconian methods possible. What's wrong? Can't handle it?

Then there's Denial. It ain't just a river in Egypt. But I'll leave it as an exercise for you to look up and see if you can gain any glimmer of self understanding from it. But I don't hold out great hopes for you doing that. It's much easier and safer to put those mechanisms into high gear and revel in the feeling of righteousness than it is to take even a quick glance into the mirror.

Although judging from your response to my previous posts, I have little hope that you would actually read them, I'll leave you with some words of men far wiser than myself. Most intelligent people would ponder them and see how they applied. I doubt you'll make that effort.

"If an American is to amount to anything he must rely upon himself, and not upon the State; he must take pride in his own work, instead of sitting idle to envy the luck of others. He must face life with resolute courage, win victory if he can, and accept defeat if he must, without seeking to place on his fellow man a responsibility which is not theirs."
--Teddy Roosevelt, January 1897

"In a republican nation, whose citizens are to be led by reason and persuasion and not by force, the art of reasoning becomes of first importance."
--Thomas Jefferson

21 posted on 12/20/2009 5:25:42 PM PST by hadit2here ("Most men would rather die than think. Many do." - Bertrand Russell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

It is noted that this does nothing to undermine freedom of speech, text is still passed, only objectionable images/videos are rated and limited.


22 posted on 12/20/2009 5:28:24 PM PST by chrismac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: chrismac; hadit2here; Eaker

You are a f’ing whack job.

********************

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2251238/posts

“I like the public/private key idea, it might find use in this model too, in place of an MD5 check of authorization.

“What I’m trying to get across is about using a polling booth, once a month or so, with Linux PC’s capable of presenting the Conscience Vote questions and options as a highly secure web page. (The booth might possibly even be in an existing ‘net shop/s, or libraries.)

“The web page would likely use simple radio button options and maybe drop down lists, to minimize typing in of answers.”


23 posted on 12/20/2009 5:51:01 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: chrismac

So every one of the 99.999% of sites that don’t have those things have to rewrite their sites to comply with your rules?

...and what defines “violence?” A heavyweight fight? UFC? Fake blood from a slasher movie? Maybe a picture of a Colt 1911A1? There are a lot of people out there who want to define even an image of a firearm as violent.

I like the web as it is. I don’t want to give up the freedom to read ideas and see images that may offend someone else.

Truly illegal content is just that — illegal. Any site with child porn is quickly taken down.


24 posted on 12/20/2009 6:06:15 PM PST by MediaMole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: hadit2here

You do overreact, conjuring up quoted scenarios, in a fevered imagination, that were never advocated and are over the top.
As was detailed, there is such a thing as objectionable images/videos. We’re not hurting freedom of speech, text isn’t filtered, and couldn’t be. The reality is you’re apparently a liberal and all you apparently can see is a fevered view of what “might occur”, not what is actually occurring - why do you even bother hanging out in FR.

“Should we eliminate everything that some busybody like you feels is “objectionable”? “
Nobody is advocating “everything”, nor cartoons, and certainly not killing in the name of what is objectionable, try not to overreact and be so dismissive (with your broad brush strokes) all the time. Your liberal use of the term fascist is ridiculous hyperbole, there is such a thing as discipline, rights and responsibilities in civilized nations. You apparently have little confidence in society’s ability to watch the watchers, whereas I believe self correcting mechanisms are inherent in modern democratic societies. Paranoia isn’t necessary, they’re not all out to get you !


25 posted on 12/20/2009 6:10:59 PM PST by chrismac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: chrismac

Get off.


26 posted on 12/20/2009 7:34:13 PM PST by Eaker (Where I'm from, "Gang Colors" is Realtree and Mossy Oak. You know what I'm saying hoss. Rule.308.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Eaker

I vote no !


27 posted on 12/21/2009 12:04:38 AM PST by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: chrismac

Isn’t it amazing how quickly some “conservatives” go crying to big government to solve their problems?


28 posted on 12/21/2009 12:15:38 AM PST by Redcloak ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrismac; rdb3; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; GodGunsandGuts; CyberCowboy777; Salo; Bobsat; JosephW; ...

29 posted on 12/21/2009 5:18:40 AM PST by ShadowAce (Linux -- The Ultimate Windows Service Pack)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrismac
Websites which don't include this attribute for each image/video would be blocked by gateway internet filters
{snip}
if you want to be anonymous use the WriteToUs form

Amazing that they desire to take the freedoms away from others, yet they offer anonymity for their own purposes. Will they really be anonymous, or will they have just given information that there is no public record of, and can be used against them at the whim of "Big Brother", which is, of course, another control mechanism in itself?
30 posted on 12/21/2009 5:35:51 AM PST by papasmurf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrismac

At what point do they start filtering out any anti-gloobalist “dangerous propaganda?”

Who decides?


31 posted on 12/21/2009 5:36:35 AM PST by paulycy (Demand Constitutionality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chrismac

Images are “speech” too.

If you don’t like or can’t control what passes through your own web browser, then maybe you should consider smoke signals or an Etch-A-=Sketch.


32 posted on 12/21/2009 5:40:48 AM PST by papasmurf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak; chrismac

I seriously doubt his Conservative creds.


33 posted on 12/21/2009 5:42:12 AM PST by papasmurf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: chrismac
As well as an additional attribute for IMG/EMBED/OBJECT, we can require an attribute in the HTML BODY header which gives an overall Content Filter rating. Absence of this would cause the documents images/videos to not be passed by the internet filter, or browser.

We’re not hurting freedom of speech, text isn’t filtered, and couldn’t be.

I cannot reconcile the two statements above. A metadata rating of the overall content that prevents documents from passing through the filter does, in fact, filter the text of the site.

R{efused} C{lassification} material includes "child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence and the detailed instruction of crime and drug use."

Anyone who has ever read a trashy novel, or Penthouse Forum, can attest that it is quite easy to GRAPHICALLY describe and provide detailed instruction as to how to do any of the above in nothing but pure text.

Additionally, "detailed instruction" of bomb building, the advocation of violence, calls for assassination of public officials, and the list can go on for pages... all are described (probably best described) in text.

The libertarian (lower-case l) in me has seen the way that well intentioned legislation -- social security, government control of any private enterprise, and such as you suggest -- turns into, not just a slippery slope, but a landslide. I will resist such legislation just as vigorously as I will resist any attempt to take any guns or detailed text, drawing, photographic and/or video instructions for making other implements for resisting tyranny that I may or may not have.

34 posted on 12/21/2009 8:02:35 AM PST by NerdDad (Aug 7, 1981, I married my soul mate, CDBEAR. 28 years and I'm still teenager-crazy in love with her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson