*Poll: Should there be a liscense to use the Internet? *read before voting

[Dasrufken]

Instead of limiting the internet we should remove peoples rights to speak... Anyone who's been in any of the big brother show, real *Insert country or region name here* housewives or jersy shore are prime candidates in my eyes..

Especially Maria Montezami and Anna Anka.

 

[ryanxm]

I dont think there needs to be a liscense it's not really needed to be honest it'd be more trouble then its worth and no matter what you do bad folks will always find a way in, same with anything else.

and think about it, do we really need the goverment taking charge of something this giant and important? im just saying if i have to start paying tolls to go to popular websites im not going to be happy...

(that was a joke haha)

 

[Athinira]

Now before you get on your high horse and say, "that's like Naziism the Internet is built foe the free exchange of information, building relationships with people in other countries, and," blah, blah, blah. Look, I'm just saying, some people prove too immature to use the Internet.

I stopped reading already there.

I'll just make it simple: You cannot be too immature to use the internet.

I'm not saying i like or approve of immaturity, but you directly state that being mature (or not being immature) is a (or should be) a requirement to use the internet. Short answer: No.

It's the responsibility of each individual service provider (no matter if they provide a forum, chat service or whatever service that facilitates communication between users) to decide which rules apply to their service and enforce them. That way, people can find a suitable place to hang out depending on what they like. Some people prefer a mature and chilled atmosphere. Some people prefer an atmosphere where you can throw perverted jokes around etc.

You are (directly or indirectly) stating that you don't approve the latter groups right to exist, even though you aren't being forced to participate in their communication. If you find a specific fora too immature, you are free to leave at any time you like and find someone else to talk to which better fits what you are looking for.

TL;DR: Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it shouldn't be allowed to exist. You are free to take a hike any time you like when you don't like the smell.

 

[Xero Scythe]

A license? No. however, I do believe there needs to be some system in place so people can't go around being anonymous punks. There's a difference between free speech in what someone truly believes and what someone is saying for the negative reaction.

"I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

 

[Giest4life]

Now before you get on your high horse and say, "that's like Naziism the Internet is built foe the free exchange of information, building relationships with people in other countries, and," blah, blah, blah. Look, I'm just saying, some people prove too immature to use the Internet.

NO. I'm tempted to leave it at that, but I know I'll get singed for it. The extent of the quote is the extent to which I read this. Sorry, right there, I've reached a fundamental disagreement. Maturity is subjective, and no one should be able to dictate the level of maturity deemed acceptable.

 

[Sporky111]

The internet isn't the problem. I think people should just raise kids that aren't total fucking douchebags with their head so far up their ass they can't even hear the words coming out their own mouth.

EDIT:

...If not to halt crime, at least to separate the immature web users who see it as a tool to be a racist, sexist, homophobic, prick...

I'd like you to tell me how having an all-knowing entity controlling the freedom of information of people, and their rights to access the internet based on personality or intelligence is at all better than identity theft and having people type mean things on a forum.

 

[jpoon]

Fuck no there should not be licenses. The fact that even a few people have said yes makes me think there is something wrong with them, talk about mindless. The day this happens will be the last day I use the internet.

 

[InnerRebellion]

Give a man a mask, and he will speak the truth.

Basically, internet anonymity allows people to act how they really want to, or at least the way society says they can't. A licence wouldn't do anything, but if you take away that mask, it could do something.

 

[Azrael the Cat]

It's a privilege. It should be able to be revoked. Though I don't see issuing Internet licenses as practical.

Your right to be a dick in public can't be revoked, see the West Baptist church. I don't see why the internet should be different. I don't support people being dicks but I support their right to be dicks. (Okay, the WBC go too far, but unfortunately we can't stop them legally)

"I may not agree with what you have to say but I'll defend your right to say it until the day I die"

Actually, that's pretty much just an American thing - don't think for an instant that 'freedom of goddamn stupid speech' is necessary for liberal democracy elsewhere. In Australia we get by just fine with freedom of political speech - i.e. if something could plausibly be of relevance to the democratic process, then it is constitutionally protected. So a group that constructs an argument (even a terribad one) that immigrants should not be allowed from certain countries is protected, but a group that goes 'lol, Asians should die in a fire' or 'one less ***** in the world' is NOT protected. We can and do stop groups like the WBC without blinking an eyelid. Just for a start, they'd be in clear violation of Racial Discrimination Act (covers religion/culture as well). They'd be sued and prosecuted for public nuisance and disorderly conduct. They'd also be criminal liable and in jail for inciting hatred. And they'd still be perfectly protected in participating in the democratic process by making the same (godawful) points in a calm and appropriate manner. We have groups with the same sort of views, and they get to participate in the democratic process too. But they don't get to picket funerals, disrupt schools and interrupt others' personal lives in grossly unreasonable ways when doing so is plainly unnecessary (and arguably detrimental) to stating their case. Frankly, I prefer our democracy any day.

Even Voltaire's idea of free speech was grounded in its relevance to democratic process, not in some moral right to public dickheadedness. And yes, in the adult world you'll find that having people appointed/voted to be the arbiters of what is reasonable by others is a standard part of social existence.

 

[Wharrgarble]

While I do wish there was a way to force people to take more responsibility for what they post on the internet, I don't think a licence would solve anything. It's just an extra, unnecessary hassle that probably wouldn't stop anything considering there will always be a work around to everything.

Plenty of people drive without licences and never get caught by the police, I can't imagine this would be any different.

 

[DEAD34345]

How will this work? First, pass a test verifying your maturity and responsibility of handling a tool of untold power like the Internet.

-Snipped due to length-

Kind of a catch 22 here, since in my opinion, anyone who wants to subject people to a test to allow people access to the internet has already failed it.

You think your opinions are more worthy of being on the net than other people? You think you are more worthy of "handling a tool of untold power like the Internet"?

Prove it. Except you can't, because it is an opinion, like what you would stop other people from expressing. Your opinion is no more important than anyone elses no matter how mature or responsible you think you are.

 

[MinishArcticFox]

I could see something like this but only for certain sites and even then only at certain times. People have the right to make any comment they want no matter how ignorant or hurtful it may be but this ID thing could be useful for keeping minors off of porn sites and the like. However the biggest use for this (in my opinion) would be to limit peoples abilities to contribute only on certain sites. For example if only people who passed this test of supreme maturity and intellect could edit Wikipedia then the site would be even more useful. However this seems like it would be difficult to put and place and relatively easy to hack around so I can't see it as realistic in any way.

 

[Wolfenbarg]

Freedom of speech man. Porn, hate speech, advocates of absolutely stupid and asinine things, and god knows what else has just as much right to exist on the web as "mature" content. Also, putting any sort of major regulation on the internet would stifle one of the largest new sectors of industry and entertainment in the world. It'd be as bad as licensing television (not like the BBC does where you get something for your money). Web 2.0 was seriously looking at a pay model similar to cable television before major ISPs realized how stupid of an idea that would have been.

 

[Nifarious]

The only mark of 'maturity' is not caring about what the immature say or do. Idiocy is eternal.
And that's the only two cents this conversation warrants.

 

[Falconus]

People say things you find distasteful?. We must silence them all.

No, There should not be a license for the internet.

 

[Sangreal Gothcraft]

Blame Idiotic Parents, Not voting, none of these options Suites what I just said. But Seriously blame stupid parents for not observing their snot nose brats.

 

[AngryMongoose]

*Votes No*
*Reads Post*
*Vindicated In Decision*
Stupid for a whole mess of reasons.
Who chooses the criteria to be awarded a license, and what are those criteria?
How is your example a justification? (Just don't read the shit people!)
Who regulates the system?
How do you see the regulation free from corruption?
How do you make sure the system isn't used to suppress legitimate free speech (WHICH IT WILL BE!)?
How do you implement the system? There are already idiots here.
What's wrong with racist sexist homophones communicating exactly? Silencing them won't make them less sexist/racist/homophobic, though it might make them (quite reasonably) angry and violent.

If you want I can come up with more.

And no, I don't have to admit there should be some kind of limit. There shouldn't be any kind of limit, bar content that necessitates having ALREADY committed a crime.

Also, with that example, good; one less ***** in the world.

 

[Woodsey]

No.

Talk about defeating the point of the internet.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm sorry, but even to take care of bad internet-goers, once you let people start taking, THEY WILL NEVER STOP.

 

[Conn1496]

No. You should just take it as far away from douchebags as possible.