Web Browser Image/Video Content Filter

...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

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

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.”

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.

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 !

Get off.

I vote no !

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

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?

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

Who decides?

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.

I seriously doubt his Conservative creds.

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.