This is what soon will happen, if
odd interest groups or individuals will be free to decide what should or shouldn't be accessible on the Internet -
WITHOUT having to go through the entire legal system first
Quote:
We already know that Turkish officials have a pretty quick trigger finger when it comes to banning certain websites.
They've banned YouTube multiple times due to videos they found offensive, and then banned Slide, a multimedia hosting company as well.
Still, it's a bit surprising to discover that now they've banned the website of Richard Dawkins after a Turkish creationist complained that the site had insulted him.
Apparently, this guy, Adnan Oktar, has become quite successful at getting sites blocked in Turkey. In the past, he also got Wordpress.com and Google Groups blocked after he became upset at content found on both of those sites.
And, even better, he claims he's not against free speech, he's just against insults. And, apparently, anyone who disagrees with him is insulting.
|
Full story here:
Techdirt: Turkey Bans Richard Dawkins' Website, Because It Offends A Creationist
I (for one) would not even
THINK about demanding a creationist site blocked (just because these people are praising something, which
I believe to be utter nonsense)
Instead I would opt to post a few messages on their site(s) in which I (in the most thorough and logical way possible) would try to explain exactly
WHY I believe that their whole way of thinking is wrong - and hope that this would be enough to
create 
even a seed of doubt in their mind(s). See,
THAT'S what democracy is all about!
So I find it very troublesome that it could soon be very easy for people with opposing opinions to mine to demand blocking of sites that I would find interesting to visit and gain knowledge from