Vietnam Internet users fear Facebook blackout

[lindal24 1]

Small potatos compared to the Patriot Act...

The difference between US and VN though is that they're a communist country. They can and will censor anything. The Patriot Act wasn't signed to be used as a tool of invasion of privacy, but moreover to be used to ensure the safety of the citizens of the US from terrorist. The Act backfired in someways in the sense that oridinary people who aren't aware of the reasonings behind the act would interpret the verbiage as a legal way for the government to spy on you (which in a sense it is...).

[lindal24 1]

Actually, in all reality, media IS censored to a degree in the US...

TV - remember back to the Janet Jackson warobe malfunction...

Print (newspaper) - Have you ever seen a picture of bloodied bodies stacked on one another with a decapitated head laying next to it?

Radio - How many times has Howard Stern been fined for saying a curse word or doing something inappropriate?

Internet - we don't have access to 100% of information (China blocks info...)

Just a few examples...

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

Actually, in all reality, media IS censored to a degree in the US...

TV - remember back to the Janet Jackson warobe malfunction...

Print (newspaper) - Have you ever seen a picture of bloodied bodies stacked on one another with a decapitated head laying next to it?

Radio - How many times has Howard Stern been fined for saying a curse word or doing something inappropriate?

Internet - we don't have access to 100% of information (China blocks info...)

Just a few examples...

In three of those cases, those are government imposed restrictions on "obscenity" because the media organization (broadcaster or publisher) could not select their audience. In other words, they can't prevent people who would be offended from seeing or hearing the content. This is the "community standards" provision that the Supreme Court has ruled (many times) can be applied to free speech. You can do or say almost anything you want, but if you're going to say or do something that might offend somebody than the person(s) who might be offended have to be provided a clear way to opt out. This has often been interpreted as anything that is freely available (as in no cost) usually has to conform to community standards. Further restrictions are often imposed by a service provider that charges a fee. For instance, a cable TV service provider can restrict what sort of content may be delivered by the channels it carries. Local communities can also impose standards, such as requiring a cable TV service provider to block access to objectionable content by children (provide parental controls).

In other words, objectionable or offensive material is not illegal, but access to it can be regulated. There are some clear exceptions - advocating the overthrow of the government by force, advocating violence against a person or group of people, etc. However, the government is not generally involved in censoring criticism of the government, which is what's going on in communist countries like Vietnam.

If you want to see Janet Jackson stark naked, or see large collections of gory pictures, there are newspapers, magazines and websites you can subscribe to - all completely legal - provided you can prove you're old enough to legally purchase the material. If you want to hear Howard Stern curse freely, subscribe to Howard.TV (on-demand from many cable providers).

As for the final case, there isn't anything the US government can do about censorship in China, or any other country.

[NQT1976 1]

you guys have to say like Google said to china : stop censoring or we will leave

[lindal24 1]

So then you're agreeing it is censored?!

Because I want to be able to naked people on tv even if it offends other people, I want to hear Howard Stern cuss because I find it hillarious, and I want to see piles of bloody bodies because I appreciate being told the truth...

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

So then you're agreeing it is censored?!

Because I want to be able to naked people on tv even if it offends other people, I want to hear Howard Stern cuss because I find it hillarious, and I want to see piles of bloody bodies because I appreciate being told the truth...

Well, if you want to see naked people on the Disney channel, and you think that not being able to see them is censorship, then yes - I agree. On the other hand, if you're not particular about what channel you see naked people on, then subscribe to the Playboy channel. If you want to hear Howard Stern cuss then subscribe to Howard.TV. I'm not aware of a channel where you could see the piles of bloody bodies, probably because there's not a huge demand for it, but if there were then I'm sure there would be a channel you could subscribe to.

The point is that everything you want is available, but if you want them then you have to pay a little extra to get them. Part of the reason is community standards - many of your neighbors don't want those channels, and they don't want them included in the basic cable package because they don't want their kids to have access to them, and they also don't want their cable fees subsidizing stuff they find objectionable. Another reason is because cable service providers know that people who want those channels are willing to pay extra to get them - basic capitalism at work. If it were truly censorship, then the government would be telling you that you can't have those channels, even if you're willing to pay for them, and they would order the service providers to block access to them.

[BinhJerome 14]

I agree censorship is censorship. You can say it is for moral reasons or that you cannot limit the viewers, but in fact it is still censorship. In America we say that the communist country is corrupt and at times you bribe the officials, while in America we call people that are trying to bribe our government officials with “campaign donations” lobbyists. Our government covers up many MANY things and they say it is for security reasons; it is government censorship no way around it. I am not sounding off for communism, just stating what most people are blind to see. Do I want a 5 year old girl watching television to see a decapitated body or a naked person, no, but then who does.

[luckytxn 2,264]

So then you're agreeing it is censored?!

Because I want to be able to naked people on tv even if it offends other people, I want to hear Howard Stern cuss because I find it hillarious, and I want to see piles of bloody bodies because I appreciate being told the truth...

I agree a lot. More naked hot babes on TV will be a big plus. If Howard Stern wants to cuss then that is fine. We can change the channel and don't need the Feds to babysit us. May see some criticisms about China and what they do to Tibet on TV sometimes but to see WHAT they really do by showing the bodies would make us see them in a much truer light.

[JimVaPhuong 4,863]

I agree a lot. More naked hot babes on TV will be a big plus. If Howard Stern wants to cuss then that is fine. We can change the channel and don't need the Feds to babysit us. May see some criticisms about China and what they do to Tibet on TV sometimes but to see WHAT they really do by showing the bodies would make us see them in a much truer light.

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a single television service provider that doesn't fall under the authority of the FCC. This includes satellite and cable service providers, as well as conventional broadcasters. If you want unimpeded access to the sort of content you're describing then the FCC will have to change it's regulations. In order to do this, congress will have to change the law. As we've recently seen, congress is frequently motivated by political objectives and not by the consensus of the people. In that case, you have to voice your objection at the ballot box. If your senator or congressman isn't representing your views, then elect people who do.

[BinhJerome 14]

Unfortunately, I don't think there's a single television service provider that doesn't fall under the authority of the FCC. This includes satellite and cable service providers, as well as conventional broadcasters. If you want unimpeded access to the sort of content you're describing then the FCC will have to change it's regulations. In order to do this, congress will have to change the law. As we've recently seen, congress is frequently motivated by political objectives and not by the consensus of the people. In that case, you have to voice your objection at the ballot box. If your senator or congressman isn't representing your views, then elect people who do.

If voting them out is not an option maybe we can all just chip in and pay them off. Cough cough I mean become lobbyists, heck it worked for the auto industry and the union