Internet Freedom and Pirate Censors

Of course, I think any filtration web content doesn't make sense. On the other hand, I would never dare order anyone service to offer and what services to purchase. I would never confuse the right to decide for others regarding their internet connection. I find it perverse, like hra to parents and children, where I would be a "big dad" who tells everyone what to look at and what not to look at.


Although the Internet is a relatively young environment, it reflects - quite naturally - many things from the real world.

One of these things is the different conceptions of freedom. However, on the Internet, which was originally created as a practically "anarchist platform", the various conceptions of freedom are further developed and crystallized.

Basically, we have 3 basic concepts:

Positive concept Freedom on the Internet presents in particular (part?) Pirate Parties. In short, according to proponents of a positive view, "everyone has the right to free speech on the Internet" and "no one has the right to block or censor anyone anywhere."

"Positives"They are fighting against connection providers who voluntarily block access to certain websites, against strict moderation of discussions on news websites and the like. "Everyone has the right to express themselves freely." Nobody has on the internet (web) the right to block anyone.

The second group are conservationists - These people want to protect. Protect children from pornography, "decent citizens" from terrorist sites, decent people from child pornography and so on.

The conservationists want enforce the protection of others by law. By ordering "web filtering" by law, these are genuine censors.

The third group - which I belong to - are "negatives“. A negative conception of freedom, or "living and letting live". From the point of view of the supporters of negative freedom, both previous views are completely wrong. Everyone has above all freedom. Not only freedom of speech, freedom of speech, but also freedom of creation, freedom of property.

Freedom to block

If I create a website, it's my website. When I moderate a discussion on it, I do not deny anyone its "freedom of speech". Everyone can start their own website and say what they want on it. Block me. Please, it's his freedom.

If I provide an internet connection, I'm not forcing anyone to take advantage of my connection offers. It is a matter of my and the client's voluntary decision, a matter of ours free choice, whether we agree and conclude a contract. If I block ("censor") any part of the site voluntarily, it is just and just my thing and no one is forced by mine services to use.

Thus, many arguments of the positives fall. Unless I'm forced by law to censorship, but if I filter myself and voluntarily, it is my business and nobody cares. You may not like it. You do not have to read or subscribe to the services I provide. We are adults and we make decisions voluntarily.

On the contrary, "the positive "are the one who is the hidden censor. The provisions of the 'right to the Internet' and the 'right to comment', to prohibit providers from voluntarily filtering content, are nothing else, than state intervention in the free choice of individuals. And what is censorship? Censorship is in other words media content control, in this case the Internet.

A what I do when I prohibit content filtering by law connection providers or do I prohibit various private blocking of discussions?

I control the content of the media, I censor it.

Between "positive" and "conservationists" there is no fundamental difference. "Mechanically" he is a supporter of the same attitudes, who differ only in value.

Privilege from freedom

What's worse, in the eyes of the positive, "freedom of speech" becomes "the privilege of speaking." And you create the privilege of freedom only by depriving someone of your freedom to create privileges for another.

You give someone the freedom to create - you restrict creators from creating their site - to give someone the privilege of expressing themselves everywhere. In turn, you take away the freedom of business - to give others the privilege of unfiltered content. You will then deprive some of the freedom of choice - to guarantee others that every provider will offer them "uncensored internet".

Everyone has to back down, to limit himself and place on the altar as a victim of his freedom and his own decision-making only in order to satisfy the desire of those who want "good for all, even against their will."

After all, everyone is stupid and only "we, the proponents of the uncensored Internet, know what is good for people."

Of course, I also think that any web content filtering doesn't make sense. On the other hand, I would never dare order anyone what services to offer and what services to take. I would never confuse the right to decide for others regarding their internet connection. It seems perverse to me, like a game for parents and children, where I would be a "big dad" who tells everyone what to look at and what not.

Sorry, but I really don't have it.

There is no need to fight the protectors

The arguments put forward are fundamental, general. It applies both to positivists and to conservationists. This only underscores the fact that both conservationists and positivists are in fact fighting for internet censorship.

Unlike positivists, however, conservationists are much less insidious and more fair, because they say this fact quite openly.

Come on June 19, 2012 at 20 p.m. Prague Clubhouse in Dejvice na debate on freedom of speech on the Internet. Moderated by Miloš Čermák, guests are Ivan Bartoš (Pirates) and Miloš Šnytr (Office for Personal Data Protection).


  1. @ MíraS: Poland lifted censorship in the early 80s. Incredible things came out there, for example in music (I personally like the band Sztywny Pal Azji).
    Otherwise, I praise this article and support it on the flattr. Although a supporter of the Pirate Party, I believe that it should be up to the service provider what technical solution he decides to apply if he wants to protect his work. Only the LEGAL protection of monopoly and perpetuity should be abolished.
    However, it is a bit more complicated with the connection. In a way, the Internet is becoming a fundamental right (some states have a constitution). Therefore, it is necessary to ensure that indeed everyone has the opportunity to freely choose a provider who makes uncensored content available to them. If there is an oligopoly of providers who, in conjunction with the lobbying of the entertainment lobby, introduce censorship of content (and this can happen), then I would call for a legal ban on all censorship. In other words, law must be based on material sources, on a real social situation, not on a theoretical concept that we would like.

  2. Petr: 😀 if you're not a pose, then why don't you throw a photo of your room with that leaflet here? Or do you recognize freedom only for some?
    To this end, I recommend Somalia to read the article "Somalia as a bad argument", where the authors have tried to prove that Somalia without a central government (which, however, is not Somalia without a government) is better off than Somalia with a communist military dictatorship:

  3. BTW: you know the Polish film Sexmise, a perfect picture of creating a world through hidden filtering of information. (I'm still thinking about how it could have gotten into public production through communist censors)

  4. I fully agree that it is up to the provider how to connect me to the network, but any filtering should always be declared. The worst thing that could happen to me as a user would be that I buy an internet connection and my provider will filter and I will find out only indirectly, here so that it works for others and not for me! This is censorship as for the comrades. Likewise, content providers, if they filter (moderate) their process to be described and publicly declared, as is customary, not to delete posts only to replace the content with a "neutral message of deletion". Everyone then eliminates with their approach those that filter too much and creates a heterogeneous environment in which everyone can choose what suits them.

  5. Immediately after reading the first paragraph, I assigned myself to the group of "negatives" according to the author's distinction. I am glad - after reading the article to the end - that I agree with the author. :))

  6. To MK:
    And if there is no train connection between those cities, does it deserve any intervention? Isn't the same situation when there is no railway between cities and when there is a railway built by a rich fool who wants such conditions that only he alone runs on it in his train?
    So how do you defend that in the case that there is no railway, it does not need intervention, and in the case of a fool with a railway, the fool must determine the conditions under which he can operate on his railway. ??
    Behind the rail, install a mobile connection highway shop anything…

  7. Only those problems are connected. If a market is closed (whether artificially or naturally - for example, it is difficult to imagine that there would be five different railway lines between two cities belonging to five different owners), then it is simply not possible to state that IMHO does not care about it and that the provider still has the relevant services have the right to impose any restrictions on users.

  8. @ 16 MK: I agree, I also disagree with the regulation of the mobile connection market.

    However, here we are under the article on blocking pages on the web, not under the article on regulating mobile connection.

    (I mean, in this case, the problem is completely different).

  9. "If I provide an internet connection, I do not force anyone to take advantage of my connection offers. It is a matter of my and the client's voluntary decision, a matter of our free choice whether to agree and conclude a contract. ”Where no mobile connection is available and, on the other hand, there is no competitive environment in the mobile operator market operator), I do not say the choice between the options "no internet or censored internet" free.

  10. @ 13 Peter: please, at your own expense, print and stick the following green text over the bed, stretched to A4 format: "Anarcho-capitalism is freedom, whatever else is fascism".
    After all, it is about my freedom of speech.
    well thank you

  11. Apparently a text written to order, which is supposed to teach people to discreetly accept the restrictions on freedom of speech and get used to the fact that it is necessary to keep your mouth shut and keep pace according to the way companies want. Really, how much did you get paid from which company?

  12. @ 10 chachar68: Does the connection provider have nothing to talk about what connection it provides?

    Does the service provider have anything to say about what service it provides?

    I repeat: the connection provider provides the connection. From whom to whom is a matter of his free choice.

  13. chachar68: part of freedom is also to refuse services. And it does not matter whether it is a consumer who refuses the services of an entrepreneur or an entrepreneur who refuses the services of a consumer.

    On the margins, competition is not only real competition, but also a potential threat of competition. This is how many entrepreneurs work, which provide services on reasonable terms, because if they exaggerate something extremely, someone can come to create real competition from potential competition.

  14. TO Lojza Suchanek:
    If the provider mediates access to the network, it has nothing to interfere with, as long as I do not overload its infrastructure with my operation and if I do not prevent the functionality of the connection for others.
    In such a case, censorship in any form is inadmissible. The argument with the competition is not very kosher, because often the possibilities of connection are limited and the client does not have the possibility of free choice, which would eliminate the otherwise unacceptable behavior of the provider by a simple outflow of clients to the competition.

  15. Chachare…
    Freedom either is or is not. There is nothing in between in real life - there is no half freedom, nor 99% freedom…
    However, you are exactly the case of a person who has the right conclusion, but you are built on a completely wrong mood. You are in the same position as the unions that enter the fall of the government - I will enter the fall of the government as well, but for COMPLETELY opposite reasons than the unions :-)

    To the point - Such a provider deserves to fail. Certainly yes, we will agree on that. But the crash deserves it because he chose the WRONG BUSINESS MODEL, and not because we give him something in the law.
    Same with the road - I agree that if there were private roads, I probably would not like that I could not carry a dog in the car (by the way, it would be completely stolen, I do not have a dog, so I would be fine on the road used, but let's say for example that I would mind). But if the road was REALLY private, it would be built with PRIVATE money. Some gentleman would go, pull out a few billion and build a highway, for example. Oki… and why did that Mr. do it at all? Well, to make money on it, right? So he will try to choose a business model that will guarantee his return on investment. And if he chooses the wrong business model (we must not carry dogs), then his investment will not return.
    But for God's sake, it's not up to me or anyone else to force him to choose another business model. It is FREE for me to decide whether or not to use his service.

    Nowadays, however, this is not the case, all business is bound by an incredible amount of regulation and regulation, and then it looks like it does - companies can sell services that would not have a chance to succeed in the FREE market, but because, for example, the state does not have to prevent competition. make a head of it tim

  16. I cannot agree with the concept according to Lukáš Kubec.
    (maybe I didn't give him a name :-))
    The provider is in a slightly different position than the regular service provider.
    If, for example, I use the parable of road traffic, then the provider is in the position of road operator. You probably wouldn't like it if you could only take that road to Kolín, but not to Pardubice or Brno. Alternatively, you should not carry a dog in the car, but only guinea pigs. In short, if I do not exceed the permissible road load and I do not crash at every intersection, no one has anything to command or control where and why I am going.
    According to Lukáš Kubec, the internet connection provider deserves nothing more than bankruptcy and public lynching by dissatisfied users.

  17. Yes, it's the same as when someone wants to ban smoking in restaurants. They perceive a visit to restaurants as their privilege and therefore want to deny the owner the right to have a smoking restaurant.

  18. I agree with the article. However, I do not agree with the current state of censorship on private websites, which are already widely used, one could almost say public law. For example, the Red Law (news) will not allow you to register even after years of trying, the system is set to idnesu so that even if you type: "hello" and some of the discussants do not like it and click on "inappropriate", your account will be canceled not a disgraced censor. Of course, the site owner has the right to set demented rules - it annoys me that he doesn't understand that he will get less traffic and therefore less advertising revenue - but it's probably more advantageous for him for some reason, and I'm afraid it's that he knows very well that the majority of the population likes to exchange their freedom for CZK 30 at a doctor. I'm not mad at website owners, I'm mad at voters.

  19. Petr -> If the telephone operator blocks calls to certain numbers, it will be his full right, if of course warn me in advance - it will be the content of "general conditions", or simply the content of the contract.
    And it's up to me as a customer whether I want to use and pay for this service or not. There could even be a telephone operator that would allow me to call only 100 specific numbers and nowhere else.
    Maybe you wouldn't use such a service, and maybe someone else would - NO ONE has the right to talk to the service provider about what service they provide.
    If someone sells rolls for 1 million CZK one piece, it will most likely be a very bad business model - but it is HIS business model and NO ONE has the right to forbid it.
    If I come to visit the house and I tell her that she must first do 20 squats in the door and only then when I leave the house, it is certainly a very unconventional request, but it is MY house and I will give my visitors the requirements I want. At that visit, it is then decided whether or not I will accept the requirements.

    In the end, if I start dating a girl who doesn't give me oral sex, I certainly won't force her to do so, but I will decide if it's acceptable to me or not, and I'll take care of it accordingly.
    Etc etc etc….

    So let each provider block who they want, if it is known in advance. It is then up to me as a customer to decide whether to order the service.

  20. If someone creates a website and blocks someone, then it's definitely their right and it's perfectly fine. However, the connection provider does not offer content, only connections, so it does not have the right to block content. Perhaps only in cases where it would be a security threat to users. It's as if a telephone operator has blocked calls to certain numbers - such as those who have been punished.

  21. I have the same approach to freedom as the author in this article. I appreciate that he took the job to write it and I'm glad that there is an environment where the article can be published.
    People with a positive freedom approach (so far I have seen such an approach with some members of the pirate party) also give the impression that they secretly deny the right to exclusive ownership of their own ideas and thoughts, including the right to choose whether to give it to others or just to every third party. .

    See the biblical parable of the vineyard (Matthew 20, verses 1-15).

Comments are off.