And then you read a report like this, saying that the Pentagon profiles US journalists, and selectively “chooses” which stories get through. It seems they were rated on how many negative, neutral or positive stories they wrote.

Of course, the release of this report caused an absolute shitstorm. The Pentagon and since assured the public that this profiling was not used to select stories. I guess they were just working on a massive chart for the office pool.

With the progress of technology, comes that of England’s CCTV. Now there are talking cameras that will scold you for littering. Now, taking photos of police in England is illegal as of February 2009, and punishable by up to ten years in prison and a fine. All in the name of counter terrorism. Also noteworthy is the recent announcement that CCTV will be placed inside the homes of the 20,000 worst families in England. To make it worse, this is the leftist government’s idea, the conservatives wanted to take things much further.

Next thing you know, they’ll be putting cameras in bathroom stalls of 11 year old schoolchildren. Oh wait, they have.

If this mess of a government policy were ever to make its way to Canadian shores, I would hope that people would cause as much of a shitstorm about it as is deserved, so that the people we elect will not let it happen. To quote Benjamin Franklin:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Aside from a €25,000 fine (reduced from the €100,000 originally sought by the government), the new Defamation Act gives the authorities the power to stage raids on publishers: the courts may now issue a warrant authorising the police to enter, using ‘reasonable force’, premises where they have grounds for believing there are copies of ‘blasphemous statements’.

I’ll state it for the millionth time, I think censorship does far more harm than good. I don’t believe that hiding the truth, and lying about the way we think, will help us rid ourselves of any problem in the world.

Take videos of beheadings, or hypothetically, someone skinning a cat alive. I am against censoring such a video because I think it’s important to see that there are some people who actually do these kinds of things, that it’s important to know what some people are actually capable of. Ignorance of the fact will only lead us away from treating the problem – it’s hard to do if you don’t know about why/how people do these things. It is my view that those who cannot handle truth do not deserve to reap the benefits of a progressive and accountable society.

An argument that supports censorship is based on the power of words; “The pen is mightier than the sword”. A well-timed insult to the right person has the capacity to trigger a war that will kill millions, neh? Against that, I argue that is is not the fault of the one who utters their thought, rather it is the one who freaks out, insulted, and who actually does the killing.

I’ll debate any person on this topic at any time.

In the meantime, check out how “hope and change” has not yet come to America, as a critic’s metaphorical mic is cut.

“AREA NEWSPAPER HATES WORLD, LIFE, YOU” – If you don’t know where this is probably from, you might need to read this.

Today, we have Wikipedia, Google, YouTube and a new competitor, Microsoft’s Bing. Has anyone used Google Earth lately? Before my trip to Cuba, I had not an idea of the layout of Havana, but I saw photos of nearly every landmark from every angle, submitted by users.

I write this because Wikipedia is set to launch what will be, in my opinion, what takes us closest to the idea of life as The Jetsons: They will be adding video to their encyclopedia. Instead of just seeing a still photo of Rick Astley, you can watch him comment on the viral RickRolling sensation, started by the infamous 4chan (nsfw) community. I can’t wait for the buggy stage to pass and for this to really work out.

I am probably the biggest proponent of an open internet, without any censorship whatsoever. I think this is a step closer to making that information even more complete.

Ask any teacher who deals with stupid parents what they think of the whole thing. Also to be noted, this is not a school act, it’s labeled as a “human rights” act. Yeah, the human right to deprive your children from real knowledge.

“A clause in the bill, which is an amendment to the province’s human rights legislation, requires that school boards give parents written notice when controversial topics are going to be covered in the curriculum.” I bet you that some parents will find some ridiculous reason to prosecute school boards for not notifying them about the incest kids read in Hamlet. Don’t these insecurities usually reflect issues from past experiences? I guess it’s just a ploy to draw out parents who still have daddy issues to offer them therapy with those wicked Alberta Dollars. Who am I kidding–they’d rather spend that money in the form of $400 cheques for everyone in the province.

• You can’t go wrong with these two xkcd comics.

• Scary stuff: Germany joins China in censoring WikiLeaks.org http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Germany_muzzles_WikiLeaks

• What the world will look like in 250 million years.

• Another awesome article by Matt Good on police use of tazers

• Roger Ebert on crazy lying conservatives like Bill O’Reilly

• In the same light, here’s a video of a meeting of Glenn Beck fans on the current state of the USA. Note the speech starting at 2:00, listen for his telling people to get their kids out of college 4:40, and for the off-camera screaming of “burn the books” at 4:48. Even the cameraman is bewildered:

Because I don’t know how long I’d last over there. This is such an incredible step backwards that I have trouble putting it into words.

I’ll be the first to admit that measures like this really scare me.

I think censorship is just as effective as abstinence-only sexual education. I would be an ignorant and naïve person if I never knew of/heard of/seen the kinds of “horrible” websites the government wants to protect me from. I do not believe that blocking off certain sites is the way to counter anyone who would choose to use the web in a malicious manner. Can we not handle the truth?

I’d want all opinions and information to be equally accessible by each person, to promote thinking for oneself and the questioning of everything we see. I am not desensitized by the disgusting things I’ve seen, like the beheading of an American soldier, which irks me to this day.

Most importantly, is the question of who decides what gets censored? What if that person is a particular businessman who could easily wipe off competition? What if it’s someone who does not share your political or spiritual views? All information should be accessible for each person, so they can compare and decide for themselves what to think/believe. Nobody has the authority to judge what is right and what is wrong in my stead.

I had a conversation about this very topic with a guy once, and in his response he said

[...]that would be a good thing if people weren’t so curious

I think if kids want to browse sites with mature content, they should. With good parenting and guidance, it will only make them better people and less ignorant. Curiosity should trump all. Again, I think its only blind, ignorant and scared parents that block content. If little Jimmy is watching porn or beheadings and enjoying it, it’s up to the parent to sit with them and ask them why. There should be no hostility, as the child is busy exploring his/her world.

My point is that just because I’ve seen, for example, racist websites – it does not mean I agree with it. Actually it made me dislike them more. There is nothing wrong with trying to learn and understand things that societal taboos forbid.

It scares the shit out of me when someone says “that would be a good thing if people weren’t so curious”. I could not disagree more.