Sunday, May 28, 2006

irrepressible.info

irrepresible.info
Amnesty International has launched a new campaign against Internet censorship. You can sign up to the pledge below here (via Guardian and Blogzilla):

'I believe the internet should be a force for political freedom, not repression. People have the right to seek and receive information and to express their peaceful beliefs online without fear or interference. I call on governments to stop the unwarranted restriction of freedom of expression on the internet, and on companies to stop helping them do it.'

This is why there is now a fragments label on the sidebar showing snippits from censored blogs and websites. Long live Free speech and Democracy.

16 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am angered that my earlier post has not been allowed, and has such been censored. Harmless, indirect swearing is surely, to an intelligent being, inoffensive. There can therefore be no justification for your hypocritical action.

Max Randor said...

Your original comment was not posted because it included some very offensive swear words and the use of such words is against the rules laid down on the sidebar and comments that contravene such rules will not be posted. You are just taking the Micky.
The only reason you were swearing was to annoy me but all it did was disappoint me as to your intellectual capacity. Sorry but really some of those words were very rude and would result in a television station suffering a major fine.

Anonymous said...

Would you not view that fine as just another form of censorship? As I wrote before, the words themselves are not offensive when used indirectly. I correctly believe (and, here, I self-censor purely so as to save you the trouble) c**t is equivocal to vagina. I was not dubbing you a c**t, but merely relishing the idiocy of your prudishness at my diction. Yes, I did contravene your rules; but I see these as contravening the liberty you supposedly celebrate. And, if I was 'taking the mickey', it is my democratic right to abstain such from a situation to which I object.

Max Randor said...

if anyone objects to anonymous's comment - say so and it will be deleted.
With freedom comes responsibility.
You can do anything you want to do as long as it does not affect anyone else in any way - if it does you must consider them as well. I consider the person who submitted the comment, other people who might read it and myself when I look at a comment. I will publish comments that I don't agree with but not ones which are just rude.
There is absolutely no point to swearing and it is certainly not useful in intellectual debate.

Max Randor said...

I will not be publishing your 4th comment either.
Prehaps I should explain my view on censorship. I agree with the censorship of child porn sites. I dissagree strongly with the censorship of sites for any other reason. However this is my site and bloggers site and I think that such words might be classed as objectionable content by blogger and they certainly are by me. if you want to swear at nothing in particular you can do it elsewhere but I find it immature and childish and that is not what this blog is about. Please if you are going to comment can it at least be about something sensible rather than just rotted sewage disguised as words.

Anonymous said...

That was not "rotted sewage", but a logical consideration of two words and their emotive values. I do believe vagina to be worse than c**t, for the widely-held, rational and inoffensive reasons that you refuse to publish. I believe there is a saying 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', similarly the meaning of a word is determined by its audience; as I have explained, to me, these words are harmless. If you are so narrow-minded as to be unable to accept this, why do you stand by ideas of democracy and intelligent debate?

Anonymous said...

I have noticed a slight, but not irreconcilable, flaw in my argument. Yes, these words may to you seem crass, but among the intelligencia, something to which it would seem you aspire, there has always been liberal employment of such terms for self expression. If I wish to express or 'take the mickey' at the trite on display here, I see a bathetic use of this language as wholly appropriate.

Max Randor said...

Rotted sewage refered to the use of swearwords in general. I have reason to suspect that you have submitted many other comments which have not been published because they were incredibly rude, insulting and were specificaly aimed at me and my friends.
"R"
The discussion of swearwords is not relevent to this debate. They have abseloutly no value at all and are as useful to debate as rotted sewage is useful as food. They have the same effect. The relitive rudness of those words may be a rational view but neither of them need be used except in biology lessons or similar circumstances.
I stand by democracy and inteligent debate but niether of them involve sprouting swearwords like weeds.
The use of swearwords is just an incredibly stupid thing to do - so why do it. Now can we please drop this subject.

Anonymous said...

This is not irrelevant, it is a discussion of the merits of something that you consistantly censor. I would argue that 'c**t' does have a place in the biology classroom, so as to avoid the inhumane sterility (as earlier shown) of 'vagina'.

Max Randor said...

in response to your 6th comment if you view fredom of speach and democracy - because that is what I was talking about worn out then you cannot use them in your arguments as reasons why you should be able to swear.
Yes swear words have been used to show opinion on how rubbish things are but it is possible to express such opinions without resorting to swearing.

Max Randor said...

I agree that C** has no place in the biology classroom but I am perfectly justified in censoring swearwords - I would just replace them with *** but this is very hard to do and takes a long time and so I cannot be bothered for something which is so worthless anyway.

Anonymous said...

"it is possible to express such opinions without resorting to swearing" You have just tried to justify the essence of artistic censorship. To use Alan Bennet's idea, you cannot paraphrase a work of art, "there are no other words". Nothing else has the emotive value and shock of a swear word. Such actions are similar to those of the Lord Chancellor circa. 1966. Here in 2006, this has no place.

Anonymous said...

Might I add, for all those fed up with this farce. Please visit rhubarb2006.blogspot.com, a place where free speech will never be inhibited.

Max Randor said...

Swear words may have "emotive value and shock" but that does mean that swearing just for the sake of swearing has any place.
If you wish to complain about what I say then do so calmly and logicaly explaining why and making relevent points because then I can explain but if you just swear then that does nothing.
I would not call a swear word a work of art.
and rubarb contains no posts - if that is going to be your blog then in future can you leave your comments with your blogger account and then I will know who I am talking to.

Anonymous said...

A swear word can add as much flavour to literature as any adjective. I have now set out my cause.

Max Randor said...

It may add flavour to litriture but it is no appropriate in the uses you were putting it to you were using them just to annoy me because you knew that I do not allow swearwords.