Tag Archives: censorship

.xxx domains are about to arrive

Posted on by
8

Pornography is about to get its own domain suffix.

From here:

After a 10-year battle, Internet watchdog Icann has finally given in to the creation of an Internet domain dedicated to pornography.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, which governs the website naming system, yesterday approved the creation of a top level ‘.xxx’ domain, opening the way for a red-light district online for pornographic websites.

Icann gave initial approval last year, but carried out further consultation checks over the application.

It is now poised to sign an agreement with the ICM Registry, which is backing the domain, allowing .xxx the same level status as .com and .org.

Religious groups argue that giving adult websites their own corner of the Internet legitimises the content.

But pornographers aren’t happy either, and worry it will ghettoise their sites.

I’m in at least three minds about this:

First, I am in favour of free speech on the Internet and that includes saying and displaying things I disagree with.

Second, I think pornography is harmful; since we are well past the stage where it can be banned, ghettoising it might be the next best thing.

Third, pornography is only a symptom of Western decay; to focus energy on its evils is to treat the symptom, not the disease. The West needs more radical medicine.

I think I’ll settle on number three, garnished with number 2.

 

 

 

London Ontario caves in to Muslims demanding censorship

Posted on by
Reply

From here:

Strictly Right sent out a press release earlier today to Canadian media with some rather startling news about the upcoming Mark Steyn speech in London, Ontario that we’re putting together. Mark Steyn will be speaking on November 1st in a speech entitled “Head for the Hills: Why everything in your world is doomed.” Apparently, London-area Muslims didn’t like that idea too much.

Due to capacity constraints at the University of Western Ontario, the original venue for the event, we had booked the London Convention Centre (LCC,) London’s premiere conference facility. On Tuesday, I received a phone call from the LCC telling us that our venue had been pulled, and that Mark Steyn would not be permitted to speak there. The reason offered by the LCC was that they had received pressure from local Islamic groups, and they didn’t want to alienate their Muslim clients. It’s interesting to note that the LCC is owned by the City of London, and is therefore a government operation.

I’m sure these Islamic groups are populated with moderate Muslims – just like the moderate Muslims who want to build a victory mosque at ground zero.

Fox News North

Posted on by
19

For reasons that escape me, I received an email fron Ricken Patel, Avaaz.org saying:

We’ve got them on the run! When 80,000 of us signed a petition refusing to be forced to pay for “Fox News North” (aka SunTV) on our cable bills, the Sun media empire threw everything they had at us – smear pieces in their newspapers, threatened lawsuits, and SunTV frontman Kory Teneycke even admitted insider knowledge of a criminal sabotage of our petition!

Sorry to break it to you, Rick, but I like Fox News South and would welcome the SunTV channel in Canada. I’m about as likely to sign your wretched petition as I am to stick a corkscrew up my nose.

If I were not already convinced, this from Margaret Atwood would do the trick:

THE ACTUAL PETITION

“As concerned Canadians who deeply oppose American-style hate media on our airwaves, we applaud the CRTC’s refusal to allow a new “Fox News North” channel to be funded from our cable fees. We urge Mr. von Finckenstein to stay in his job and continue to stand up for Canada’s democratic traditions, and call on Prime Minister Harper to immediately stop all pressure on the CRTC on this matter.” THE VERBS ARE “APPLAUD,” “URGE,” AND “CALL ON;” NOT “BAN,” “SUPPRESS,” AND “CENSOR.”

The “Fox News” comparison is from the Sun’s own CRTC Application # 1. Is it “American-style hate media?” You judge.

The CRTC refused Sun TV News’ request for a special licence that forces all cable and satellite distributors to offer the station, thus generating almost automatic income. Application #2 — almost the same deal as #1, but for three years — will be considered. The Sun says it needs this special deal for its “business plan.” Should it get one? Should anyone? Can I have one too?

AM I A PROPONENT OF “CENSORSHIP”?

Nope. Read the petition again.

Now Konrad von Finckenstein has said he isn’t under pressure (unlike his fired CRTC deputy), and will judge Application # 2 on its merits. Good!

REAL CENSORSHIP INCLUDES

Book burning, murdering, jailing and exiling writers, and shutting down newspapers, publishers, and TV stations. If you are against this, support PEN International and Index on Censorship.

Calling the Avaaz petition “censorship” is beyond cheap.

Calling something censorship that is censorship isn’t cheap, it’s accurate. Rather than let the great unwashed decide for themselves whether the new channel is “American-style hate media” by being given the chance to watch it, a liberal elitist would take it upon herself to act as nanny and tell us we can’t have “Fox News North”. Instead we’ll just have to put up with the current Canada-style drivel media that meets Margaret Attwood’s approval – and is paid for by our cable fees, not to mention our taxes in CBC’s case.

Although I wouldn’t burn them, I dislike Margaret Atwood’s novels as much as she dislikes Fox News; to plagiarise a remark by Malcolm Muggeridge about Edna O’Brien, I’d rather be a minor character in a Jane Austen novel than a major one in a Margaret Atwood novel.