What would you think if your government dicided to block sites on the internet?

What would your thoughts be about your government deciding to block sites they felt they didn't want you using or seeing? Would it make a difference if the sites had illegal content? What if the sites had content your government felt was infringing activity? What if one of the sites proposed turned out to be YouTube?
Would this be considered censorship or just a good way to handle illegal infringement of copyrights, etc..?

I would see it as censorship,but on the other hand...there is some pretty horrible stuff out there ...

Not sure, Roxanna... but think that could prove to be bad for a lot of sites that have people doing illegal things without their permission or knowledge. Would Yahoo be on that list with all the illegal crap that goes on there? Just wondering how far they'd carry it.

i don't know breezey, i think it's all out of control anyway .

Gooood morning/evening/whenever! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I think that we need LAWS! for this internet. It's sad,
and I have no idea how they will go about it; it will be
a logistics nightmare.
Different countries; different laws... they are barely getting a
handle on the garbage that endangers people; especially
children.
They've completely lost their minds off! the internet;
"in the public domain" does not, SHOULD NOT!mean some
moron can break into an actor's home! so the idiot can take
a picture. Libel and slander laws, etc. differ, place to place,-
(I prefer England's "take" on that one to ours) but they need to
be put in place on the internet and enforced.
(Ah. Maybe that's a 'more jobs created' idea...)

In so far as music goes; if people download something they
didn't PAY FOR - that's stealing!
A musician has every right! to expect the copyright laws
be upheld. So do authors, photographers, etc.
It is their property and it is their livelihood.

I think Youtube should be made to pay a LARGE!, expensive!
bunch of fines and made to STOP. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
If they want to continue with a site where any-and-every moron
can make a fool of him/herself and post the tape of it it there ...
fine. Assuming it is theirs! to submit.

Invasion of privacy is a real concern and they need to control it.

"Blocking a site" because the government "didn't want it seen"? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
That is another matter, entirely.

That! is censorship and it is illegal in this country.
(For the most part.)
Government "censorship" is a LOUSY! idea. , anywhere!
Why should it be any different on-line?

Protecting the people is what "law" in general is about...

Here, our government's law is reactive. I think it's a good thing;
I don't want a bunch of people sitting around dreaming up what
"should" be illegal - if it ever happens.

Unfortunately but not surprisingly, once again people have
proven that if they're given an inch they will try to take all of it,
just like they've done everywhere else they've ever been.

The need for some laws on the internet exists now and
the "time has come."

What I'm saying is; they should begin to apply existing laws
applicable elsewhere to the Internet also.

It was "nice" -maybe- while it lasted; but like everything and
every place else; some people don't know when it's enough.
The law came to Dodge City and it is overdue on-line,
before someone literally figures out how to commit murder here. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Laws, yes. And start enforcing those laws, instead of considering it too minor to waste time on... but, to start picking and choosing for everyone... what is a site allowed... that is going to be a bad thing. These sites wouldn't be blocked to protect anyone from harm, just to stop people from using them if they have others breaking laws on them... even without consent or knowledge. How far would that go? Would that include personal sites? Can any really big site be held accountable for all individuals and why should they be? Here, we all agree that what we say and post is our own responsibility.
A site should be expected to enforce and follow rules and laws, if they realize something is being done wrongfully, but the real lawbreaker should be the one facing consequences. I think a site should suffer, if it can be proven they aren't attempting to honestly stop illegal or wrongful things.

An operative word from you post above BB:
"RESPONSIBILITY." If more parents could only teach their children the meaning of that word. People need to realize that there are repercussions and consequences for their actions. You do the WRONG thing, and payment is due! Sometimes, in life, there are NO "do overs" ... NO "get out of jail free cards" ... NO "reset" on the game.
=================
Government censorship is NEVER a good idea! Once you start down that road ... where does it stop? Do you REALLY want someone else to do your thinking for you? Bigger question: Do you really want the people in GOVERNMENT to do your thinking for you? ... We've seen numerous examples of what "icons of morality" people in goverment turn-out to be! ... NO, THANK YOU!

bunny, you are right ,we should be teaching our kids responsibility,to go with the rights they have.
i want to do my own tinking and not be told by anyone how to do it,but... how to deal with illegal activities happening on line ? huge networks of pedophilia,countless children ...well..we know the details.....not enough manpower to chase them all up...

Should jihadist cites be shut down?

Wow... we are off in different directions here.
Sites with illegal activity would be sites where people are pirating music and movies and other things in that line.
Nobody seems to mention anything about stalkers after kids and such, but I would surely hope that came before the more monetary things.
As for who... it's a lot of adults too. Adults and kids can download without permission and post without rights.
YouTube may be one to be blocked... not for "adult content", just because some people use it illegally. Essentially, ALL would lose rights to use sites that some use for the wrong purposes.

Tater... I'll get back to you, once I figure out what that means. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

i would hate to see uTube blocked, got a lot of fun out of that one.it's the old story where to STOP baning ? cars kill people ? it's always the illegal/irresponsible ones who get everybody dumped in the same bag
tater ,jihadist sites could be shut down,maybe wouldn't solve the problem, but at least cut down on numbers of people being influenced by visitng them.

Tater Salad wrote:Should jihadist cites be shut down?

Should they be shut down? From the small idea of what they are, that I have so far, many are not going to see those sites as good. If they were to be shut down, it would be for a lot different reason than just not allowing us to see them. They aren't the same as someone just using the site in an illegal way it wasn't intended for. They wouldn't even fit in with being censored, they'd be gone.
The censored sites would still exist, just many of us wouldn't be allowed to see or use them... if our government has their way. The government would be deciding which sites we can't go to. Maybe we'll be blocked from sites that offer information on what the government is actually doing.. Maybe I wouldn't be allowed to view sites that have more information on flu and vaccine shots or other important things the government prefer we just not know the facts about. Once they are given power to block sites from us, they won't stop at minor things. At least, I don't think they will, not with the way things have gone so far.
It would be like telling us we couldn't go to certain places in our neighborhoods because others did illegal things there that were not known or authorized by the owners. I don't think I like being under the government's thumb even more.

“This is wrong,” said Mark Hutchins, a sophomore, “The websites should at least be notified and taken to court before being shut down. They (Congress) could use this to take down anything that disagrees with them, like China does.”

The bill would work like this: Congress or a committee is alerted to the presence of a website that contains copyrighted content. This could include image sharing websites and hosting sites. Then the Internet Service Provider (ISP) is contacted, and the ISP blocks the domain.
Any user of that website would see their favorite page simply disappear, or could see the infamous “404 Not Found” message.http://www.pennmanor.net/pennpoints/?p=7739

Everything I have looked up about this, basically says the same thing. We'd be under government control for internet. They may start with certain sites, but that doesn't mean they won't move on to bigger things. I look at other places where the government has taken over and see the same happening to us, if allowed to go through.

Before the government gets involved in legislating morality ... I would refer them to the words of an Eric Clapton song:
"Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself ..."