<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Free speech on the internet</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.arpia.be/2009/07/free-speech-on-the-internet/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.arpia.be/2009/07/free-speech-on-the-internet/</link>
	<description>Website of Peter Craddock, novel writer and composer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2011 18:13:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JacaByte</title>
		<link>http://www.arpia.be/2009/07/free-speech-on-the-internet/#comment-902</link>
		<dc:creator>JacaByte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 03:24:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arpia.be/?p=191#comment-902</guid>
		<description>Many, many websites and forums have content filters for expletives and rules against imagery such as pornography. Moderators on forums can (usually, I can&#039;t) temporarily or indefinitely suspend a user&#039;s posting rights, or put them on moderator review so the moderators get to decide what the user says. I&#039;ve had it done to me once, to tell ye the truth. It&#039;s very effective for getting somebody to cool down, but that&#039;s not &quot;free speech&quot; in the most liberal sense. (by liberal I mean liberty, not the left wing party)

Free speech [i]would[/i] turn the internet into a world of anarchy, so first you have to define what free speech is, and then you have to come up with a whitelist of good things to say and a blacklist of bad things to say. This only sounds bad if you take it literally; in moderation it helps promote a sensible community that not a dusty mud-slinging arena.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Many, many websites and forums have content filters for expletives and rules against imagery such as pornography. Moderators on forums can (usually, I can&#8217;t) temporarily or indefinitely suspend a user&#8217;s posting rights, or put them on moderator review so the moderators get to decide what the user says. I&#8217;ve had it done to me once, to tell ye the truth. It&#8217;s very effective for getting somebody to cool down, but that&#8217;s not &#8220;free speech&#8221; in the most liberal sense. (by liberal I mean liberty, not the left wing party)</p>
<p>Free speech [i]would[/i] turn the internet into a world of anarchy, so first you have to define what free speech is, and then you have to come up with a whitelist of good things to say and a blacklist of bad things to say. This only sounds bad if you take it literally; in moderation it helps promote a sensible community that not a dusty mud-slinging arena.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Valesco</title>
		<link>http://www.arpia.be/2009/07/free-speech-on-the-internet/#comment-880</link>
		<dc:creator>Valesco</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2009 18:21:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arpia.be/?p=191#comment-880</guid>
		<description>It would indeed be very interesting to examine how free speech can potentially be hindered on the Internet (as opposed to the common belief that it is a world of anarchy) juste because of some legal mechanisms, and where that could lead...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It would indeed be very interesting to examine how free speech can potentially be hindered on the Internet (as opposed to the common belief that it is a world of anarchy) juste because of some legal mechanisms, and where that could lead&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

