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).