Re: DON'T Nuke Singapore Back into the Stone Age

[jonathon <grafolog@netcom.com>]

On Mon, 2 Sep 1996, James Seng wrote:

> Most importantly, the move to censor certain WWW site actually comes as a 
> relieve to many people, especially parents who worried about the bad 

	And it is a pain for people whodevelop websites.

	To avoid offending those who are easilly offended, I 
	either have to put up a stupid << and very misleading warning
	label >> or block them out.

	My solution is to put up the misleading, and incredibly stupid
	"warning" label.   << Stupid & misleading, because although
	my pages do violate the CDA, and most other countries statues
	on what is acceptable content, the same text, if written
	would not even be given a second glance -- except maybe by 
	the humint part of that country, who would use it for training 
	purposes. >> 

> for artistic which rules out soft-porn. It may be surprising but many
> people (in Singapore) do welcome censorship sad to say.

	And what will happen to Singapore when "their beloved leader"
	dies, especially if a result of an assasination?   

> passive manner. They _do not_ read every issue of every magazine available
> in Singapore. They only do so when there is enough complains. For example,

	IOW, the newspapers, etc have to either not print stories that
	may cause complains, or print them, and go to jail.

	Censorship at its most vicious, and the most destructive of
	both the society it tries to appease, and the individual who
	doesn't conform to its sheere stupidity.  

> One more point. They know it is impossible to censor everything. It is

	And passing laws that are unenforceably, is simply another way 
	to ensure that laws in general are ignored, which leads to the
	increased instability of the regime, which leads to the precise
	opposite effect of what usually is intended. 

        xan

        jonathon
        grafolog@netcom.com