The model you advocate would be a de facto legalisation of political censorship on the internet. Sorry, no points.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Advising on which broadcasts are suitable for children is a... less trivial issue. As long as it is only advisory, as long as it is reasonably transparent which organisation(s) are responsible for the labelling, and as long as the criteria they use are reasonably transparent, then I fail to see a problem. If I don't think that Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction is odious or harmful for children to view, then I am perfectly capable of ignoring a little sticker in the corner of the screen advising parental discretion (leaving quite to one side the fact that I find the Superbowl harmful viewing for anybody of any age...).
Germany and Austria have... obvious historical reasons, shall we say, for enforcing a ban on certain volumes and certain parties, and I'm inclined to go easy on that. But the time will come (has come?) when that ban needs to be re-evaluated. The threat of a Nazi coup in Germany is about similar to the risk of a revival of the Soviet Union, so one might rightfully ask why these parties are outlawed.
Try to express this opinion in France and you'll have an opportunity to see if your entire Eurotrib blogging history will save you from being labeled a Lepenist.
"There are certain parts of the fascist program - advocating genocide, committing overt discrimination, using or advocating violence as a political tool, military coup d'etats, etc. - that are and should be illegal"
The same holds for publications or broadcasts which would try the same. The same must hold for the internet. The size of the network is too much even for national authorities. Just like radio or TV, internet providers should have their number reduced and be strictly controlled as to the content passing by, because even an obligation to keep browsing history is not enough. In the end it is a technical issue. Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last! (Martin Luther King)
The same holds for publications or broadcasts which would try the same. The same must hold for the internet.
No, it should not, because the internet is not a broadcast medium. It is a peer-to-peer medium, not unlike the shady corner in your local biergarten. What you are proposing is roughly equivalent to demanding that every pub installs cameras, microphones and other devices that keep record of their patrons' movements and utterances.
Because, y'know, they might be selling drugs. Or planning a Nazi coupt d'etat.
Surely, if biergartens had been monitored in the Weimar Republic, the Nazi party could have been broken up before it seized power. Doesn't that justify permanent surveillance of all biergartens? No? Why not?
Just like radio or TV, internet providers should have their number reduced and be strictly controlled as to the content passing by, because even an obligation to keep browsing history is not enough.
You do realise that by reducing the number of ISPs and subjecting them to content filtering, you will make it much, much easier for existing media monopolies to crack down on independent reporting, right?
You are substantially describing a world in which the internet becomes an advanced version of cable TV. While that's great news for Murdoch, Bush, Sarko, Corruptioni and the rest of the fascist-lites we have running around in the broadcast media, I fail to see how it would be of any value to society as a whole.
