Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey.
Info here on how to avoid this.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/u...ine-censorship

harry wrote

Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.

Not in the first world it isnt.

As presently in China and Turkey.

If you are actually stupid enough to 'live' there...

Info here on how to avoid this.

Dont need to avoid it.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/u...ine-censorship

On 21-Mar-17 8:11 AM, harry wrote:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey....

According to your link, only of undesirable or extremist web sites,
which won't leave you a lot to read Harry.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 21/03/2017 08:11, harry wrote:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey.
Info here on how to avoid this.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/u...ine-censorship



So, Jihadwatch claim they are being blocked by most UK ISPs (fascists,
the lot of them, apparently!) Yet, you posted a link to their website,
and nobody here has said they can't read the link.

Does that tell you anything about the reliability of Jihadwatch?

I think the biggest problem will be the blocking of unintended sites. I look
forward to the legal actions with interest. Before you create a genie best
check your bottles.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"harry" wrote in message
...
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey.
Info here on how to avoid this.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/u...ine-censorship

On 21/03/17 09:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 21-Mar-17 8:11 AM, harry wrote:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey....

According to your link, only of undesirable or extremist web sites,

They are going to block the BBC?

which won't leave you a lot to read Harry.


Harry doesn't read the BBC



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:22:54 +0000, GB wrote:

On 21/03/2017 08:11, harry wrote:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey.
Info here on how to avoid this.

So, Jihadwatch claim they are being blocked by most UK ISPs (fascists,
the lot of them, apparently!) Yet, you posted a link to their website,
and nobody here has said they can't read the link.

Does that tell you anything about the reliability of Jihadwatch?

Alternative view is that is says a lot about the readers of the group in
that they have probably not even bothered to look at the link posted by
harry. A decision to be applauded.

On 21/03/2017 08:11, harry wrote:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey.
Info here on how to avoid this.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/u...ine-censorship


I have used Airvpn it is very good.

On 21-Mar-17 10:10 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

On 21-Mar-17 8:11 AM, harry wrote:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey....

According to your link, only of undesirable or extremist web sites,
which won't leave you a lot to read Harry.

But the Chinese and Turks only block "undesirable or extremist" websites
- what matters is what a particular government regards as undesirable...

I have no problem with restrictions that comply with the European
Convention on Human Rights.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 09:21:57 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 21-Mar-17 8:11 AM, harry wrote:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey....

According to your link, only of undesirable or extremist web sites,
which won't leave you a lot to read Harry.

and as Rod says not in the first world but then again Harry lives in his own world ;-)

On 21/03/2017 11:32, Nightjar wrote:
I have no problem with restrictions that comply with the European
Convention on Human Rights.


That does not reassure me greatly given the Court's approach to it as a
"living document" allows them to decide tomorrow it means something very
different from what it meant yesterday (let alone what it was intended
to mean when drafted).



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Mark Allread wrote:

On Tue, 21 Mar 2017 09:22:54 +0000, GB wrote:

On 21/03/2017 08:11, harry wrote:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey.
Info here on how to avoid this.

So, Jihadwatch claim they are being blocked by most UK ISPs (fascists,
the lot of them, apparently!) Yet, you posted a link to their website,
and nobody here has said they can't read the link.

Does that tell you anything about the reliability of Jihadwatch?

Alternative view is that is says a lot about the readers of the group in
that they have probably not even bothered to look at the link posted by
harry. A decision to be applauded.

I must admit that was my decision too.

--

Roger Hayter

On 21/03/2017 11:32, Nightjar wrote:
On 21-Mar-17 10:10 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

On 21-Mar-17 8:11 AM, harry wrote:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey....

According to your link, only of undesirable or extremist web sites,
which won't leave you a lot to read Harry.

But the Chinese and Turks only block "undesirable or extremist" websites
- what matters is what a particular government regards as undesirable...

I have no problem with restrictions that comply with the European
Convention on Human Rights.

What about our 'human right' to watch what we damn well please? We're
grown ups who don't recognise the right of other grown ups to tell us
what we can or can't watch.

--
Max Demian

On 21-Mar-17 12:34 PM, Robin wrote:
On 21/03/2017 11:32, Nightjar wrote:
I have no problem with restrictions that comply with the European
Convention on Human Rights.


That does not reassure me greatly given the Court's approach to it as a
"living document" allows them to decide tomorrow it means something very
different from what it meant yesterday (let alone what it was intended
to mean when drafted).

Essentially, that only means that our perspectives of what laws are
necessary in a democratic society change over time. For example,
blasphemy ceased to be an offence in the UK in 2008.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 22/03/2017 10:07, Huge wrote:
On 2017-03-22, Nightjar wrote:

[22 lines snipped]

I don't see that working as a defence for being caught in possession of
... materials likely to be of use in terrorism.

A term so poorly defined as to be utterly useless.


Very useful to the police if they want to "get" someone that they don't
have any real/hard evidence on.

On 22/03/2017 10:12, Nick wrote:

Very useful to the police if they want to "get" someone that they don't
have any real/hard evidence on.
I know. It was a good point. So I made it again ;o)

On 22-Mar-17 11:32 AM, Tim Lamb wrote:
....
Hmm.. How do you stop your children posting you videos of the
grandchildren in the bath?

The youngest step grandchild is 18.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 16:18:01 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/03/2017 11:32, Nightjar wrote:
On 21-Mar-17 10:10 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

On 21-Mar-17 8:11 AM, harry wrote:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey....

According to your link, only of undesirable or extremist web sites,
which won't leave you a lot to read Harry.

But the Chinese and Turks only block "undesirable or extremist" websites
- what matters is what a particular government regards as undesirable...

I have no problem with restrictions that comply with the European
Convention on Human Rights.

What about our 'human right' to watch what we damn well please? We're
grown ups who don't recognise the right of other grown ups to tell us
what we can or can't watch.

Do I have the right to watch you being rapped and killed ?

whisky-dave wrote:

On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 16:18:01 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/03/2017 11:32, Nightjar wrote:
On 21-Mar-17 10:10 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

On 21-Mar-17 8:11 AM, harry wrote:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey....

According to your link, only of undesirable or extremist web sites,
which won't leave you a lot to read Harry.

But the Chinese and Turks only block "undesirable or extremist" websites
- what matters is what a particular government regards as undesirable...

I have no problem with restrictions that comply with the European
Convention on Human Rights.

What about our 'human right' to watch what we damn well please? We're
grown ups who don't recognise the right of other grown ups to tell us
what we can or can't watch.

Do I have the right to watch you being rapped and killed ?

There are few or no restrictions on watching people being killed. I am
told our allies fill youtube with videos of them slaughtering various
foreign people from the air. Personally I don't lke to watch people
being killed or raped, but Hollywood seems to think this is fine as long
as no genitalia are visible. Looked at objectively, the restrictions
are bizarre. Even though such things do not appeal to me I can't see a
legal basis for preventing people watching them, except perhaps the
privacy of the people portrayed, which the law is largely interested in.




--

Roger Hayter

Roger Hayter wrote:

whisky-dave wrote:



Do I have the right to watch you being rapped and killed ?

There are few or no restrictions on watching people being killed. I am
told our allies fill youtube with videos of them slaughtering various
foreign people from the air. Personally I don't lke to watch people
being killed or raped, but Hollywood seems to think this is fine as long
as no genitalia are visible. Looked at objectively, the restrictions
are bizarre. Even though such things do not appeal to me I can't see a
legal basis for preventing people watching them, except perhaps the
privacy of the people portrayed, which the law is largely interested in.
^^^^^^^^^^

*un*interested!!!


--

Roger Hayter

On Wednesday, 22 March 2017 13:03:31 UTC, Roger Hayter wrote:
whisky-dave wrote:


What about our 'human right' to watch what we damn well please? We're
grown ups who don't recognise the right of other grown ups to tell us
what we can or can't watch.

Do I have the right to watch you being rapped and killed ?

There are few or no restrictions on watching people being killed.

There are restrictions on unlawful killings.

I am
told our allies fill youtube with videos of them slaughtering various
foreign people from the air.

But as harry would say they are foreign people so who cares.
But there;'s no eveidence that those killings are illegal and have already happened before they get put on youtube.


Personally I don't lke to watch people
being killed or raped, but Hollywood seems to think this is fine as long
as no genitalia are visible.

No they are actors , star trek isn't real either or so I've been told.

Looked at objectively, the restrictions
are bizarre. Even though such things do not appeal to me I can't see a
legal basis for preventing people watching them, except perhaps the
privacy of the people portrayed, which the law is largely interested in.

Maybe it's something to do with cause and effect, I mean lots of people are intrested in watching football so that's why it gets on TV which in turn makes more people watch it, it may even make more people want to play it becausxe they can earn money at it and get on TV, would uo really want this to apply to child rape and Pedophilia, and that it's OK provided you pay them or give them sweeties, drugs or alcohol.




--

Roger Hayter

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, 21 March 2017 16:18:01 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 21/03/2017 11:32, Nightjar wrote:
On 21-Mar-17 10:10 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

On 21-Mar-17 8:11 AM, harry wrote:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey....

According to your link, only of undesirable or extremist web sites,
which won't leave you a lot to read Harry.

But the Chinese and Turks only block "undesirable or extremist"
websites
- what matters is what a particular government regards as
undesirable...

I have no problem with restrictions that comply with the European
Convention on Human Rights.

What about our 'human right' to watch what we damn well please? We're
grown ups who don't recognise the right of other grown ups to tell us
what we can or can't watch.

Do I have the right to watch you being rapped and killed ?

Why not ? Nothing wrong with rapping, it isnt even illegal.

In article ,
harry writes:
Rumour has it that online censoring is to be implemented.
As presently in China and Turkey.
Info here on how to avoid this.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/u...ine-censorship

http://www.jihadwatch.org

ISP Result Last check on Last blocked on
=== ====== ============= ===============
AAISP ok 2017-03-22 21:58:11 No record of prior block
BT-Light ok 2017-03-22 21:58:11 No record of prior block
EE ok 2016-04-03 18:40:40 2016-03-21 00:06:00
O2 timeout 2016-10-07 02:01:52 2016-04-03 18:40:34
Plusnet ok 2017-03-22 21:58:11 No record of prior block
Sky filter default
blocked 2017-03-22 21:58:10 2017-03-22 21:58:10
TalkTalk Kidsafe
ok 2017-03-22 21:58:12 No record of prior block
Three ok 2014-11-30 02:33:46 No record of prior block
uno Communications
ok 2017-03-22 21:58:11 No record of prior block
VirginMedia
ok 2017-03-22 21:58:11 No record of prior block
Vodafone ok 2017-02-17 23:58:53 No record of prior block

So only Sky and probably O2 block it, although EE have also blocked
it in the past, and results may vary with user selectable ISP filters.

(courtesy of Andrews+Arnold
https://www.blocked.org.uk/results?u...jihadwatch.org)

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

On 22/03/2017 22:08, Andrew Gabriel wrote:


So only Sky and probably O2 block it, although EE have also blocked
it in the past, and results may vary with user selectable ISP filters.

Sky don't block it.
Not unless you have the filters set to block it.
You can set the level of block when you log in to your sky account.