Jump to content

Featured Replies

Posted

A coroner has criticised online chatrooms after a man was goaded into committing suicide while dozens of users watched live on the internet.

 

Kevin Whitrick, who hanged himself with an electrical cord, is believed to be he first person in Britain to take his own life over the internet, an inquest heard yesterday.

 

The pop star, Prince, is also considering legal action for copyright infringement against a number of websites, including video sharing site YouTube.

 

YouTube insist that they have no way of knowing which videos on their site have been uploaded legitimately. But this may not prove an adequate defence: the website is also facing lawsuits from MTV 's owner, Viacom, and the Premier League.

 

Are such events as Mr Whitrick’s suicide and the alleged infringement of Prince’s copyright signs that the internet is out of control?

 

Should the internet be policed? If so, by whom, to what extent, and how?

 

Has the internet changed the way you think about copyright and the ownership of music?

 

Source: Sunday telegraph

 

  • Replies 22
  • Views 2.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No

 

It is up to personal responsibility, no one forced the guy who committed suicide to enter that chatroom, he could also have left it at any time, people have to take responsibility for their own actions in life without being nannied and wetnursed all the time

 

The net should not be policed, it is about personal responsibility

No

 

It is up to personal responsibility, no one forced the guy who committed suicide to enter that chatroom, he could also have left it at any time, people have to take responsibility for their own actions in life without being nannied and wetnursed all the time

 

The net should not be policed, it is about personal responsibility

 

yes it should, not so much to prevent suicides online but to help prevent paedos grooming kids who dont know any better

yes it should, not so much to prevent suicides online but to help prevent paedos grooming kids who dont know any better

 

Again its up to parents and kids to take responsibility too

 

If someone is being bullied by ppl on MSN block those that are doing it, if someone is being perverted towards a minor then the minor should block and delete them and report what happened to the police, it is also up to parents to monitor what their kids are doing online, what sites they are using, making sure they do not visit inappropriate sites and so on

 

What should not be done is the net to become some giant nanny state that is completely devoid of free speech and where everything is controlled, illegal stuff is a matter for the police like it is offline but also parents and kids have responsibility too to keep themselves safe

, illegal stuff is a matter for the police like it is offline but also parents and kids have responsibility too to keep themselves safe

 

EXACTLY! illegal stuff is a matter for the police, so the net (in some areas) DOES need policing!

I thought it was unofficially policed anyway?

 

How else do authorities pick up on terrorist cells, paedophiles, etc.

Surely the internet is already policed. Many agencies track terrorism on the internet. Sting operations are carried out by the police against paedophiles. How can it be policed any further?

 

About the only thing that may need improving is that sites like eBay and YouTube need to be more accountable for what appears on their sites. But I think this is slowly happening anyway. Sooner or later one of the businesses or individuals who are sueing these websites is going to have their day in court and cause a change in the "hands-off" way they operate.

One thing that should not be policed is freedom of speech, if America for instance or big corporations took control of policing and controlling the net that would lead to huge suppressions of freedom of speech and what can be talked about online particularly in terms of the activities of the Bush administration and 9/11 and so on. Of course criminal activity should be stamped down on online by the police in the same ways as it is offline, a crime is a crime, but freedom of speech should always be a sacred part of the net

No.

 

I'm entitled to privacy while I'm on the net and wouldn't want someone watching me from my window so why would I agree to have someone

lurking on the net watching everything I do??

 

Kids should be banned from internet access under a certain age unless parental guidance can be guaranteed for the time they are on it.

The parents should be charged and jailed for neglect if their kids access something they shouldn't or get picked up by peadophiles etc.

MAKE THE PARENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN SPAWN PLEASE not everyone else.

 

One thing that should not be policed is freedom of speech, if America for instance or big corporations took control of policing and controlling the net that would lead to huge suppressions of freedom of speech and what can be talked about online particularly in terms of the activities of the Bush administration and 9/11 and so on. Of course criminal activity should be stamped down on online by the police in the same ways as it is offline, a crime is a crime, but freedom of speech should always be a sacred part of the net

 

but where does the line between 'freedom of speech' and offending people/illegal activities, drawn?

 

i saw a programme on ch4 several years ago where 2 cops in canada surfed sex chatrooms/forums pretending to be little girls in order to entrap paedos... so it probably is going on anyway. could we have an internet WITHOUT any form of policing? it would be a criminals charter to do/organise anything.

 

again, in this country several years ago, a p**** ring was busted by the police infiltrating them. they were planning to abduct schoolgirls locally (derby), film their abuse, kill them, and put it online. thankfully, due to internet policing this was prosecuted before anyone was harmed.

 

so the question 'should the internet be policed' must be a resounding 'yes'. after all, if you are doing nothing wrong wtf have you to worry about? i couldnt give a flying fcuk who reads anything i write, im not bothered if anyones watching me, why should i?.. surely the point of the internet is that its a world wide tool to (if you want to) comunicate to anybody listening.

Yes because I'm fed up of seeing racists, homophobes, etc.

Yes because I'm tired of seeing these sad pro-ana websites, etc.

 

No because the police will start to abuse their power and then we won't be able to give our honest opinions anymore. Just look at moderators on forums (not this one). Some of them start to go overboard and close topics involving people they don't like, deleting threads for the sake of it, etc. Power changes people.

well todays news is highlighting 'cyber bullying', so again this is more evidence that self policing will not work. people are abusing their freedom so policing is a viable action to take.

No. Internet policing is not the answer.

Banning kids from internet access without parental supervision is.

 

well todays news is highlighting 'cyber bullying', so again this is more evidence that self policing will not work. people are abusing their freedom so policing is a viable action to take.

 

Again its up to kids and parents

 

If someone is bullying someone over MSN or MySpace then BLOCK AND DELETE them, very simple, problem solved

 

 

Yes because I'm fed up of seeing racists, homophobes, etc..

 

I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be affected at all if the internet was policed.

Again its up to kids and parents

 

If someone is bullying someone over MSN or MySpace then BLOCK AND DELETE them, very simple, problem solved

 

tell that to the thousands that are bullied, it goes beyond those places, mobies, emails, etc...

No. Internet policing is not the answer.

Banning kids from internet access without parental supervision is.

 

and crime? terrorism? besides its impractical to do that.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.