[MLUG] net neutrality and videotron

[sustain_ability at 123mail.org]

It's tragic, because the heartless exploitation of defenceless beings in
whatever capacity or situation (yes, according to Judeo-Christian values
to some, plainly moral values to others) is arguable, and has and will
be argued. You can do as you wish, and Videotron can still make money
supplying you with materials they claim to be otherwise throttling or
censoring. It's my choice to defend those who are being victimized. 

The 'Net has made it more difficult to stop the spread of such material.
But that should never be used as a reason to allow the spread of immoral
 materials. So yes, there is a definition of obscene. 
Sustain  


On Sun, 1 Mar 2009 18:54:47 -0500, "Nicholas Accad" <nicholas at accad.org>
said:
> I would hate to be in your shoes when you argue the word "obscene"
> Leslie.
> 
> This is an extremely relative/subjective thing, obscenity should never
> be a valid reason for blocking content.
> 
> Take for example my musical tastes, that vary all the way from thrash
> metal to funk. Would you consider a band like Gwar to be obscene? What
> about Prince? (Sexy M.F. anyone?). Honestly, my response is "Who the
> f*** do you think you are to judge MY tastes?"
> 
> 
> I agree with you, who decides? And the answer is "Me", I decide what I
> get to watch, if there is something that I do not agree with, I simply
> do not watch it, or find a way to block it MYSELF, not impose my rules
> on anyone else.

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin