Opposed to cyber safety

[B Howard <malroy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In the recent 20 or 30 years, with the evolution of the Internet, there has
been an explosiion of free speech. The general axiom has been that all
speech, even undesirable speech is good. As the internet has grown up,
several groups have proposed placing censorship in place to control the
undesirable speech.

However, experience has shown when one form of speech is considered
undesirable and is therefore censored, it provokes other forms of
censorship. As such, I am strongly opposed to any censorship on the
internet. What is considered good and wholesome within one coutry's borders
(much less state/region, county, city, and town) is considered offensive in
another area. The delimia of forming a group that sets the stands of
conversation one the internet is that the regional sensabilities would still
be offended. Case-in-point: orthodox Muslims find any exposed skin on Women
offensive. Other issues that might arrise is the silencing of groups that
are opposed to some religions, cultures and ideas.

In order for democracy to flourish, all convesations, even the undesirable
conversations need to have a voice. Regardless of the general value to
society, the conversations need to happen. The idea of creating a seperate
internet for the undesirable information could lead to a tax on it (i.e. the
santized internet cost $X, but the unrestricted internet cost $X+$Y).
Further, the proposal puts the power of managing the internet under US
controls.

The proposal also comes from a group with religious leanings. The CP80 group
is no stranger to controversy. Instead of relying on parents to determine
what is acceptable, this group proposes to have the Government enforce
standards for them. The nature of the internet allows all people to have a
voice and to find similiar voices. Censorship is no way to promote freedom.