Clementine de Montjoye 写到，法国总统尼古拉•萨科奇建议颁布一项法律对那些支持恐怖主义暴力的网站的读者给予惩罚。
France's Interior Minister and leader of the French ruling Conservative party UMP (Union for a Popular Movement) Nicolas Sarkozy votes on a computer at the party's headquarters in Paris in this January 11, 2006 file photo. Cyberspace is turning into a hotly contested arena in this year's French presidential elections, as candidates seek to harness the Internet's vast but volatile resources to give them a decisive edge. To match feature. (REUTERS/Charles Platiau/Files)
It seems to me that Sarkozy’s proposal is too much of a drastic measure. I do understand that such a law could avoid future terrorists acts but it is also true that governments always have their own personal agendas other than doing whats for the greater good.
but as mentioned above the government could simply shut down the sites that preach violence or terrorism.
What we have to keep in mind when voting for or against these drastic laws is that they could always be counter productive, like the government having too much control and the very essence of ‘freedom of speech’ dissolving into thin air.
Imagine the same situation in a religious society: Governments threatening to jail and punishing people for watching internet pornography. Wouldn’t that result in a public outcry although the religious people would celebrate such a law.
In my personal opinion there are many other things that could be done other than punishing people for visiting websites. And other governments are actually taking very strict measures other than just tracking down our browser history.
io credo che seppure limitando la privacy individuale sia una buona mossa, insomma perchè qualcuno dovrebbe guardare certi siti se non interessato? o comunque guardali frequentemente? credo che se per il bene collettivo si possa rinunciare a qualche libertà.
Hi Durex, the idea is that you use the Google translate button to translate other people’s comments rather than your own. Please write in whatever language you feel most comfortable.
I) Sa nekog mog gledalista na ovakve stvari, stvarno kaznjavati ljude koji posecuju ekstremiticke sajtove je malo suludo, jedan od razloga je zato sto pola ljudi ni ne shvataju gde ulaze ( jer koliko god mi mislili da je svaka osoba oko nas kompijuterski skolovana grdno se varamo, jer statistika govori drugacije) , a drugo je zato sto su ljudi koji znaju gde su usli radoznali, zele da znaju nesto vise o tome, i onda naravno udju na sajtove tog tipa
II) Treba kaznjavati, zasto? pa to moze dati ideju nekim ljudima koji su patriote, i misle da treba da brane drzavu od (nepostojecih) neprijatelja, i to stvara velike probleme, jer takvih ljudi je sve vise.
Zakljucak moj bi bio da ne treba kaznjavati te ljude sto posecuju, ali treba oformiti tim programera koji ce pratiti takve sajtove i odma ih rusiti!
I find the notion of flagging content as unlawful or suspicious highly offensive. Even if the law defines explicitly what websites could be considered violent or terrorist activity it sends the message that the government is able to suppress or outlaw information and expressions it disagrees with. Today it could be a terrorist or pedophile website, in 20 years it could be anything.
reply report Report comment
It seems to me that Sarkozy’s proposal is too much of a drastic measure. I do understand that such a law could avoid future terrorists acts but it is also true that governments always have their own personal agendas other than doing whats for the greater good.
but as mentioned above the government could simply shut down the sites that preach violence or terrorism.
What we have to keep in mind when voting for or against these drastic laws is that they could always be counter productive, like the government having too much control and the very essence of ‘freedom of speech’ dissolving into thin air.
Imagine the same situation in a religious society: Governments threatening to jail and punishing people for watching internet pornography. Wouldn’t that result in a public outcry although the religious people would celebrate such a law.
In my personal opinion there are many other things that could be done other than punishing people for visiting websites. And other governments are actually taking very strict measures other than just tracking down our browser history.
reply report Report comment
io credo che seppure limitando la privacy individuale sia una buona mossa, insomma perchè qualcuno dovrebbe guardare certi siti se non interessato? o comunque guardali frequentemente? credo che se per il bene collettivo si possa rinunciare a qualche libertà.
reply report Report comment
btw do I need to write on english? It seems google translate aint working atm or, it cant translate what I wrote? :s
reply report Report comment
Hi Durex, the idea is that you use the Google translate button to translate other people’s comments rather than your own. Please write in whatever language you feel most comfortable.
reply report Report comment
Pozdrav,
Ovako ima par stvari koje bih rekao u vezi ovog;
I) Sa nekog mog gledalista na ovakve stvari, stvarno kaznjavati ljude koji posecuju ekstremiticke sajtove je malo suludo, jedan od razloga je zato sto pola ljudi ni ne shvataju gde ulaze ( jer koliko god mi mislili da je svaka osoba oko nas kompijuterski skolovana grdno se varamo, jer statistika govori drugacije) , a drugo je zato sto su ljudi koji znaju gde su usli radoznali, zele da znaju nesto vise o tome, i onda naravno udju na sajtove tog tipa
II) Treba kaznjavati, zasto? pa to moze dati ideju nekim ljudima koji su patriote, i misle da treba da brane drzavu od (nepostojecih) neprijatelja, i to stvara velike probleme, jer takvih ljudi je sve vise.
Zakljucak moj bi bio da ne treba kaznjavati te ljude sto posecuju, ali treba oformiti tim programera koji ce pratiti takve sajtove i odma ih rusiti!
Srdacan pozdrav!
reply report Report comment
That’s right my friend but for me it’s strange to punish someone who is watching those websites… If you ask me, those sites should be shutted down!
reply report Report comment
I find the notion of flagging content as unlawful or suspicious highly offensive. Even if the law defines explicitly what websites could be considered violent or terrorist activity it sends the message that the government is able to suppress or outlaw information and expressions it disagrees with. Today it could be a terrorist or pedophile website, in 20 years it could be anything.