Two of my favorite personalities on the Canadian web are Mark Goldberg and Michael Geist. Often taking opposite positions on key issues, their commentary is always a worthwhile read. So, this morning read Geist's cautionary piece on censorship and then read Goldberg's counter that reasonable societies should censor some elements of the web.
I don't pretend to know the answers. You'll have to make up your own minds. But I have sympathy for both the argument that children need to be protected, and freedom of expression must be preserved. As a society we need to preserve both of these values.
Let's start by reframing the debate though. Censorship is a dirty word. It implies a restriction on the reasonable freedoms that citizens in a free society should have. If we're going to have a conversation about preventing access to child porn, then let's frame the conversation in those terms, rather than talking about censorship.
Alec Saunders is the Vice President of Developer Relations for BlackBerry make Research in Motion. This is his personal blog, with his personal viewpoints. Prior to this Alec was the CEO and co-founder of Calliflower — the easiest way to hold a meeting, online, on a conference call, or on the go. A double-decade veteran of product management and marketing, he spent nine years at Microsoft where he helped launch Windows 95, the first two versions of Internet Explorer, the Universal Plug and Play initiative, the push into home markets, opt-in email marketing and what might well go down in history as the very first direct email list ever.
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
I thought I would reference my own contribution to this debate: http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4594
Mark Goldberg is promoting the myth that the best way to deal with speech that our society has decided should be illegal is through large powerful intermediaries able to claim they are enforcing this policy. This is typical of the old-media “dumb terminals, smart network” thinking of the sector that he represents and consistently lobbies on behalf of. This is the type of thinking that new media “smart terminals, dumb network” end-to-end thinking replaces.
It is laws that deal with the persons controlling the source terminal, and possibly the sicknesses that create demand at the destination terminal, not intermediaries, which is how we will ultimately solve these problems. Granting power to intermediaries that has been, is, and always will be abused is not a viable solution.