Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

For the record, I was the first person to say kids weren't ready to give consent in certain matters.

Off the record, when I become a jedi, I won't need bullets.

[bjlong]

Damn your trendiness, Cthulhu! Damn it!

Also, I'm going to make a gun that fires hammers. Which, themselves, fire bullets.

[ein]

Has anybody here been keeping track of China's internet censorship?
It's pretty crazy.

Look at this:
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&um=1&q=%22%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6%22&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%87&ei=QF88SuaHKc2BkQXvouS1Dg&gbv=2
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&um=1&sa=1&q=%22%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6%22&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=
Those are pictures of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989.

[Chutney]

Has anybody here been keeping track of China's internet censorship?
It's pretty crazy.

Look at this:
http://images.google.cn/images?hl=zh-CN&um=1&q=%22%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6%22&btnG=%E6%90%9C%E7%B4%A2%E5%9B%BE%E7%89%87&ei=QF88SuaHKc2BkQXvouS1Dg&gbv=2
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&um=1&sa=1&q=%22%E5%85%AD%E5%9B%9B%E4%BA%8B%E4%BB%B6%22&btnG=Search+images&aq=f&oq=
Those are pictures of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989.

I'm curious as to how exactly they do that. Do the Chinese govt. have a deal with google, or do they own the branch that handles the Chinese version of google, or what? I can understand entirely blocking websites that have propoganda/pictures that would put the Chinese govt in a bad light but changing GOOGLE?
Maybe I just don't understand this internet thing as well as I should...

[ein]

China is censoring the internet "to protect the people."
It's really just a load of bs.
I think how they can censor it like that has something to do with the Google China servers being in China, allowing them to change it readily.

[Chutney]

I think how they can censor it like that has something to do with the Google China servers being in China, allowing them to change it readily.

Ahh, that explains it. I had thought that there was a central "hub" for the internet (I'm pretty sure one exists somewhere in America, I read an article on it a couple years back, basically meaning America owns the internet. HAS to be decreasing our property value  ) but then I realized that in addition to that, there are servers scattered all around the world. And I doubt google would be able to tell China to stop messing with it's stuff.
Sucks to live in a country who censors so strictly...

[inaluct]

I drew a comic that started out as being about draconian laws, but then it sort of devolved into incoherence.

toad edit: comic removed, use of "nigga"

I'll draw more later.

Next update: Inaluct goes to jail! :D

toad edit:  true enough, given history of saying "faggot" all the time, 2 week mute

[Toady One]

Just saying, he might see the words "child pornography" and just lock it out of principle, without reading the article.

He clearly never looked through the bloody thing.

He read the whole thing.  Perhaps he read it more closely than you did.  I read it too.  You know, that article which advocated allowing forty year olds to have "affairs" with their eleven year old neighbors as long as they don't use violent force outright.

I warned Armok originally for link spamming, as he was posting it everywhere, but I hadn't actually read the thing.  Then Threetoe read it and locked the thread.  I am in agreement with his decision.  The thread wasn't about the gray areas of the law, Armok just said "hey, I agree with this article".  "This article" being the article advocating child rape.  Then the next guy in the thread was like "yeah, I agree too, as long as there's consent" -- but the article defined consent as "kids can consent once they reach puberty", and so it's not clear where we were at, but we shouldn't have started there to begin with.  There were some decent replies, but the OP itself was completely unacceptable.

I wouldn't have a problem with ein posting his current article, as it concerns one of the gray areas that is often discussed even in the mainstream media, but since he was the poster that made the ambiguous first reply to Armok's thread, and given some of the subsequent replies, I'm not very enthusiastic about this thread.  Some people have already managed to make other forum-goers question the integrity of this forum and its nonchalant attitude toward the previous article.  The reputation passes beyond individual posters and has a direct effect on my livelihood.  I'm not in a position to stand by and watch this forum get pegged with a reputation as a NAMBLA outpost just because some of you lack critical reading skills.

[Armok]

That article which advocated allowing forty year olds to have "affairs" with their eleven year old neighbors as long as they don't use violent force outright.
...
"This article" being the article advocating child rape.

That was not how I read it, maybe it's lack of critical reading skills, or English not being my native language, or simply kids having a much lower average intelligence and maturity than the limited sample I've meet indicates. But those things were NOT what I meant I agreed to.

[Muz]

Lol, I didn't even read the article Armok linked to in that thread.

Anyway, on this thread, all new laws are going to be a little retarded when they come out, because of new technology. 300, heck, 30 years ago, it was impossible for a girl to send nude pics of herself to thousands of people. These days it is. They quickly made a law to stop little girls from doing that, but didn't bother to think it through long enough to see that it results in situations like these.

It does make sense to charge her as a sex offender, in a sense that people who walk around naked are. Heh, but I would have done similarly dumb things back when I was 14. It's pretty common for a teenager to experiment with that stuff, before things like sanity kick in. Good intention in making the law, but it's not going to stop hormone-filled teenagers... and it doesn't help them when they're 20 and have a child pornography charge in their record.

[Luke_Prowler]

*facepalm*

This is what happened when you don't look after your kids.

She is actually breaking the law, if only the words and not the spirit of the law. the case should be thrown out, but the girl should be punished somehow, because posting nude pictures, even of yourself, is just plain wrong and gross on so many levels.

Why do people do this? why must our generation sacrifice its self in the name of popularity? Congragulations, you are the you are the 1# **** of the ****pile called "the cool kids". you've given up your pride, your self steem (is that spelled right?), and all that is holy to you to get there, but it's all worth it becuase everyone wants to be with you and be just like you. saddly, what you are is a hollow shell of a human being, a worthless husk of what could have flourished. and you've haven't just destoryed your own life your goal of assimlation into the crowd, you forget of your old friends and loved ones, who you have no doubt hurt in you climb onto the pile. Congradgu-****ing-lation. Here is your prize: a set of weak willed friends who will use you and then leave you like rats when all the meat is gone. A low paying job (if not worse), becuase you were too near sighted to look for your future. And a jeweled past like a star, impossible to reach, yet you try and try again to reclaim it only to fail at your own hands. That, my friends, is the cost of populatiry.

...oh...I'm sorry about that ...I...I need to lay down.

[sonerohi]

Kids now-a-days are just plain stupid. When you're 14, you don't need to be gettin' busy in that sense. You need to be busy with doing good on freshmensophmore year of high school so that you actually know what you need to know to make it as a junior and senior, so you can get into a good college. And then, if you get into a decent college and keep your grades up, you can have time to focus on getting 'busy'. Before then, it really just doesn't matter for anything.

[Leafsnail]

What the girl did was stupid and ridiculous, but it seems unfair to give her a long jail term and cripple her for life by putting her on the sex offenders' register.  She needs some kind of specialist attention - something to teach her that what she did was dangerous and wrong - but a purely punitive jail term isn't going to help a thing.

[Dakk]

Eh, going to law school myself, and i think sometimes the punishment will only cut open another wound instead of actually helping one heal. Imagine how crippled her life will be if she's registered as a sex offender for all her life, imagine the damage to her personality in develpment and the humiliation she'll suffer. What judges and jury today forget is that law exist to serve the people, not the other way around. Crimes must be interpretated as to not cause this kind of mess.

Can you really label a teenage camwhore the same way you label a greasy +35 year old kiddie fondler?
Using a literal interpretation of a generic law thats supposed to cover an offense and be interpretated to assimilate particular cases? Yes. Using equity to adapt the generic law to the particular fact? No.

[Armok]

This is disgusting, it is deserving something far worse than jail.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That a government can behave like this, that is.
Not that I'm surprised