The point is: if somebody writes it and puts it into the kernel, there
will be somebody else who uses it. The latter somebody *may* be a
worrying father, mother or teacher, but it may also be the government
of the United States of America (or the Federal Republic of Germany,
for that matter). Or something worse. Or *much* worse.
> > I can hardly believe that someone calls an automatic censorship module
> > a "bonus" or a "neat demonstration". That's sick.
>
> I agree that censorship forced on unwilling people is wrong,
Are children generally willing to be censored? Do parents have the
right to "protect" their children this way? Do governments have the
right to "protect" their citizens? I think they don't, in all 3 cases.
> however I also believe that parents (or in this case the
> replacement for the parents, the teachers) should have some degree
> of influence over what information is made available to their
> children. It is definetly much better than censorship regulated by
> the government with vague terms such as "indecent" and "patently
> offensive".. It would serve as an example that citizens ARE capable of
> protecting themselves from such things without the help of the
> government... (it is an added bonus that linux is free)
If people feel that the 'net is evil, they can as well sign off.
But they shall not force others to do so.
-- Michael "Tired" Riepe <riepe@ifwsn4.ifw.uni-hannover.de> "Beware the storm that gathers here!" (The Prophet's Song)