GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Telus within their rights
Being an independent business, Telus is under no obligation to provide access to all internet web sites, including the union one. If the union sympathizers don't like it, they can switch to another internet provider.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by GOLFnSUN  :Being an independent business, Telus is under no obligation to provide access to all internet web sites, including the union one. If the union sympathizers don't like it, they can switch to another internet provider. That is true, which is why I'm glad BBR is posting the story here so that more people, especially Telus subscribers, can decide for themselves whether they want to do business with such a company. Ahh, free North America. |
|
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs:
| I agree, technically Telus has the right to do this but it scares the hell out of me to think US ISPs might do the same in the future. I for one don't want a private company decided what information I can and cannot get online. And for that reason, to say nothing of this just being underhanded on their part, I'd drop kick them and go back to dial up if I had to.
--
AMD A64 3200+/ MSI K8N Neo Platinum/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC4000/ WD 74Gb Raptor/ PNY 6800GT/Gainward 5200PCI/ Antec 550 True Control/Custom water cooler |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com | reply to GOLFnSUN
They may be within their rights but I would really hate to see political censorship in this country.Imagine not being able to access a website because your ISP doesn't agree with the view. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
1 edit | said by Orwell1984:
They may be within their rights but I would really hate to see political censorship in this country.Imagine not being able to access a website because your ISP doesn't agree with the view.
Private businesses are under no legal obligation to guarantee free speech. They are, however, in business to make money, so pissing off large numbers of customers isn't in their best interests. So I wouldn't worry about some massive censorship effort. My advice remains the same - don't like it and you're a union member or sympathizer, then switch providers.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| Since I am not Canadian this instance is not really my problem. I am concerned about the possibility of this type of action in the U.S. I do not want to have to pick my ISP base on Thier politics.Also it would probably not be good to have opposing view points unavailable.Believe it or not I have occasionally found my opinions to be wrong.If I only have access to opinions which mirror my own how will I ever become wiser?What if your provider is a flaming liberal and wants to block websites that support conservative points of view.Censorship is bad, be it by a government or a corporation.I Hope that this type of thing never happens here but fear that in our current political climate anything is possible. |
|
sirhailstone
join:2001-12-01
Indianapolis, IN
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Something that is equally interesting.
When CNN was/is owned by AOL Time Warner (Has AOL been jettisoned from TW yet?) imagine AOL deciding to block access to competing cable news services, like MSNBC (double whammy - MSN and NBC) and their arch-enemy the right-biased Fox News Channel.
At AOL's heyday, it was by far #1 in online subscribers. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | reply to Camelot One
"Scares the hell" out of you? A private enterprise filtering a website showing it's employees in such a way and situation that harm may come to them? This scares the hell out of you?
All I can say is wow. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| said by oliphant :"Scares the hell" out of you? A private enterprise filtering a website showing it's employees in such a way and situation that harm may come to them? This scares the hell out of you? All I can say is wow. Hey, at least make an honest argument. Telus isn't doing this for employees' safety, they're doing it to deny access to information that may be harmful to the company. |
|
Armour
join:2002-01-08
Scarborough, ON
| reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :Being an independent business, Telus is under no obligation to provide access to all internet web sites, including the union one. If the union sympathizers don't like it, they can switch to another internet provider. But shouldnt a paying subscriber be told of this ? shouldn't they be the one's to make the choice?
If I was a telus customer I would drop them in an istant. I'm all growen up now and can make my own choices of what I belive. But you can't make a choice from only one side of the story. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | reply to vpoko
said by vpoko :said by oliphant :"Scares the hell" out of you? A private enterprise filtering a website showing it's employees in such a way and situation that harm may come to them? This scares the hell out of you? All I can say is wow. Hey, at least make an honest argument. Telus isn't doing this for employees' safety, they're doing it to deny access to information that may be harmful to the company. It's irrelevant. The fact that this would "scare the hell" out of anyone is simply amazing. Masked gunmen entering your home in the middle of the night would scare the hell out of someone. Being on a plane as it goes down in flames would scare the hell out of someone. A private company blocking a single site shouldn't scare anyone. I'm surprised someone so fragile would be able to function normally in society.
People simply over-dramatize these things to the point people just laugh rather than listen to the genuine concern.
This isn't the end of the world. This isn't even a 'slippery slope'. You think it's lame that they blocked a union site...then sure, it's lame. But that it would "scare" someone is simply ludicrous. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
What if your provider is a flaming liberal and wants to block websites that support conservative points of view. For the most part it wouldn't happen (at least to the point where you wouldn't know it was happening because the fact is a selling point, ie: "family friendly ISP's") because businesses don't want to piss off a good portion of their customers. The wise owner keeps politics as far away from their business as possible.
--
Misfits lost in the dryer, take heart
Maybe there's a place up in sock heaven. |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| reply to oliphant
The potential harm of censorship scares a lot of people.It scared our forefathers enough to write the first amendment to the constitution.I do not know what protections Canadians have on free speech but if this ever happens here I hope there are legal avenues to redress the issue. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
4 edits | Read the 1st Amendment again please. The 1st Amendment only applies to Government as in "Congress shall make no law..."
Private companies can "censor" whoever they want so long as it doesn't violate the anti-trust or Civil Rights act or similar Federal or State laws. It's (as in the service is) their property, they can determine how it's run. You as a subscriber have only ONE choice. To subscribe or not to subscribe. Every other choice belongs to the company as it should.
It's not censorship but rather their own private property rights they are exercising when blocking a site. |
|
vpoko
Premium
join:2003-07-03
Jamaica Plain, MA
| reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
The potential harm of censorship scares a lot of people.It scared our forefathers enough to write the first amendment to the constitution.I do not know what protections Canadians have on free speech but if this ever happens here I hope there are legal avenues to redress the issue.
The first amemndment (the entire bill of rights actually) only applies to the government. Private companies are free to censor as long as they aren't violating a specific statute.
I am arguing against the wisdom of the policy rather than its legal basis. |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com | reply to oliphant
My point was that they thought it was important enough to make it an amendment. Not that the amendment applies. My original statement stands. Censorship is bad no matter who is doing it. |
|
bamboox
join:2000-12-15
Renton, WA | said by Orwell1984:
Censorship is bad no matter who is doing it.
Is all censorship bad? Is censoring child porn bad? Is it bad if I prevent my child from view pornography? |
|
peter_m
Premium
join:2005-07-13
Canada, QC
| reply to GOLFnSUN
WOW,
what about us, the small consumer??? Most people dont have too many high speed ISPs to choose from. I know, it's my situation. Only have the cable company or the phone company to choose from. Doesnt seem to be a very open and free market. It borders monopoly, unfair to the consumer if I may say so. Both are large private corporations with union problems of theire own. How what would happen if they both decided to filter internet content?
Peter M |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to Orwell1984
said by Orwell1984:
My point was that they thought it was important enough to make it an amendment. Not that the amendment applies. My original statement stands. Censorship is bad no matter who is doing it.
In your opinion maybe but the Founders also saw personal property rights important too. |
|
Orwell1984
@fdn.com
| reply to bamboox
If you limit what your child sees then that is good parenting.If you try to limit what my child sees then you are a censor.I won't argue the merits of censoring child porn it is too emotional of an issue, but it is already being used to further harass legal adult porn sites. |
|
