Truetejas

I read about your proposed internet filter in the New York Times (I live in Texas) and was compelled to comment on this "blog". I'll resist my temptation to respond to this at length and just offer a few points I think should be considered as one small group of people wish to control the actions of a great many. 1. Freedom is about the ability of an individual to make choices. Censorship (filtering) removes choices and thus restricts freedom. Is this really the path a free people want to take? 2. Your government asks "How do we maintain the same 'civil society' we enjoy offline in an online world?". The short answer is that no society in history has been completely civil and to think regulating the internet via filters will curb access to uncivil content is absurd. Pornographic pictures can be embedded in almost any type of file. Free speech was never meant to be "civil" and the internet is a perfect vehicle for freedom of expression (at least up till now). 3. If your digital economy is truly the focus of all of this, and if, as admitted by Senator Conroy, 3% of all internet traffic is unjustly trapped in the proposed filter, then you are reducing any economic benefit the internet may have by that same 3%. Making the pie smaller just doesn't seem like a good idea. I have no doubt that the proposed concept of filtering internet content is well intentioned, but it is a draconian solution that is doomed to failure. The best way of curbing illicit material on the internet is by controlling its source. First define what is illicit, next, force the sites with that content to operate on a fixed block of designated bandwidth, and finally regulate that block of URLs. Interestingly enough, that very proposal was voted down by ICANN (see here at ). In closing allow me to quote from an old Chinese proverb: "You can't teach a pig to sing. Its impossible, and, it annoys the pig." . Translation: "You can't legislate morality. Its impossible, and, it annoys the voters." . Note: I made up the Chinese part ;-)