ED added to Australian blacklist, google AU censors

rtil · March 21, 2010 12:51 AM

Quote from: sentryNo, i dont agree, but I can see why they did it with ED or at least that article in particular. I think making publications that are racist and potentially offensive towards an ethnic group and using the "freedom of speech" argument to defend them is out of place. Wether it is serious or just a joke.

in what way is it out of place? as long as you are not directly harming anyone, you should have the freedom to say whatever you want despite how intolerant or blatantly racist it is. freedom of speech isn\\\'t an argument, it\\\'s a human right.

no one is making people look at ED. it doesn\\\'t need to be censored

billy · March 21, 2010 01:16 AM

Quote from: rtil
Quote from: sentryNo, i dont agree, but I can see why they did it with ED or at least that article in particular. I think making publications that are racist and potentially offensive towards an ethnic group and using the "freedom of speech" argument to defend them is out of place. Wether it is serious or just a joke.
in what way is it out of place? as long as you are not directly harming anyone, you should have the freedom to say whatever you want despite how intolerant or blatantly racist it is. freedom of speech isn't an argument, it's a human right.

no one is making people look at ED. it doesn't need to be censored

yeah, freedom of speech doesn't exist to protect popular speech. popular speech doesn't need protection, it exists to protect UNPOPULAR speech.

Taokaka · March 21, 2010 01:23 AM

ed sucks lol its for unfunny 4channer faggots

OH I NEED TO RESEARCH THIS MEME ITS EPIC FOR THE WIN

who cares

Daveb0t · March 21, 2010 02:11 AM

Quote from: BamyasiI love ED.

4chan is really cool pease agree

Mew_User · March 21, 2010 02:15 AM

Quote from: dvvebbbsiuo
Quote from: BamyasiI love ED.
4chan is really cool pease agree

Sure why not.

DrRumack · March 21, 2010 02:57 AM

who fuckin cares if its just ED this is a violation of their rights as australians

they live in a democracy for christ's sake

Taokaka · March 21, 2010 03:23 AM

if I was australian and my government banned 4chan and ED I would get on their knees and suck their dicks and thank them profusely

ansel · March 21, 2010 05:54 AM

hurr hurr if dey banned 4chan I WUD BE QUITE PLEASED MM YES HERPDADERP

jjjjjjjjjj · March 21, 2010 06:21 AM

4chan is my favorite website

billy · March 21, 2010 10:23 AM

australian government has been consistently retarded

Kött · March 21, 2010 02:04 PM

Quote from: RobHalfordWell then burzum and co came around and started burning churches and killing each other. Now Nergal of Behemoth is facing jail time for burning bibles.

Is that true? Since when does a modern democracy as Poland connect religion to the law? I thought legal punishment for expressing you despite against the church ended with the middle ages... I can burn as many bibles as I want for it is my fucking as long as they are my property. Seriously, what the hell?

Quote from: anigened gives me viruses despite me having my firewalls up and my internet protection avast running help

Sadly, that somehow is true...

Quote from: rtilin what way is it out of place? as long as you are not directly harming anyone, you should have the freedom to say whatever you want despite how intolerant or blatantly racist it is. freedom of speech isn't an argument, it's a human right.

no one is making people look at ED. it doesn't need to be censored

The keywords are "the tolerance of intolerance". If those people try to create more tolerance, they should start tolerating my intolerance for everything else would make them intolerant as well.

trent bortknob · March 21, 2010 03:09 PM

that seems a little edgy i dont know. i mean i guess i don't know if i would say that tolerating hate and stupidity is a good idea. wouldn't that just lead those stupid and hateful people to group together, which would probably lead the actual action which could be harmful to innocent people? i guess in that case one could just punish those who actually ACT and not those who just have opinions

yeah i guess that makes sense

Kött · March 21, 2010 04:45 PM

Being intolerant doesn't mean I'm acting. Expressing this opinion is a kind of act but the question is where the gray zone starts... As long as I'm not mobilizing a mob with an inflammatory speech I'm not really committing a crime.

RobHalford · March 21, 2010 05:31 PM

Quote from: Kott
Quote from: RobHalfordWell then burzum and co came around and started burning churches and killing each other. Now Nergal of Behemoth is facing jail time for burning bibles.
Is that true? Since when does a modern democracy as Poland connect religion to the law? I thought legal punishment for expressing you despite against the church ended with the middle ages... I can burn as many bibles as I want for it is my fucking as long as they are my property. Seriously, what the hell?

http://www.metalsucks.net/2010/03/09/behem...ion-of-a-bible/

rtil · March 21, 2010 06:18 PM

Quote from: Uncle Tоmthat seems a little edgy i dont know. i mean i guess i don't know if i would say that tolerating hate and stupidity is a good idea. wouldn't that just lead those stupid and hateful people to group together, which would probably lead the actual action which could be harmful to innocent people? i guess in that case one could just punish those who actually ACT and not those who just have opinions

yeah i guess that makes sense

that is the point - it's the difference between saying something and acting upon it. i mean, yeah you can get in trouble for certain things you might be dumb enough to say, like pre-meditative murder, but ED is a troll site filled up with the most offensive things people behind a screen can think of. whether a government chooses to censor it or not is a testament to whether they truly believe in free speech or not, which i do believe is a human right.

in the grand scheme of things, this has nothing to do with ED or 4chan - which some of you of course entirely missed. this is one of those slippery-slope scenarios where if you say this one thing should be banned, then it leads to another and another, to a point where everything is so watered down you become a slave to the state bureaucracy where only certain things can come out of your mouth or you could end up in prison.

even now you can get fined $11,000/day for every day you have a link up to an ACMA banned site if you're an australian domain.

Taokaka · March 21, 2010 11:22 PM

does Australia have a bill of rights

on another note does anyone care about Australia

rtil · March 21, 2010 11:41 PM

they don't, but they do have a constitution

cr0m · March 22, 2010 02:38 PM

Quote from: anigened gives me viruses despite me having my firewalls up and my internet protection avast running help

i dont even run on av on most of my windows machines and ive never had a problem ever what

slack · March 22, 2010 02:45 PM

yea who needs antivirus thats for fucken noobs

cr0m · March 22, 2010 03:39 PM

yeh man wtf he he