Canadian ISPs Look to Ban Porn Sites Without Going to Court

[DVTimes]

Canadian ISPs Look to Ban Porn Sites Without Going to Court

Is this going to be bad. I thought Canada was liberal.

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=15461

TORONTO ? A proposal at the Canadian Telecom Summit could pave the way for Internet service providers to remove objectionable websites, including those that contain pornography, without having to engage in protracted legal engagements with site operators.
In a speech to the Canadian Telecom industry, which included managers from major ISPs like Rogers, Cogeco and Sympatico, Bernie Farber, CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, put his finger on the crux of the problem. ISPs that want to do something about objectionable material like hate speech and porn cannot remove sites without those sites first being declared illegal in a court of law, Farber told the crowd.

"This is a commercial business,? Farber said. ?A newspaper doesn't have to accept every letter to the editor and an ISP doesn't have to accept everybody as a customer if they choose not to. It doesn't take a lot to discern what is pornographic and what is hate.?

While Farber considered his plan to be well received, he did concede that customers and website operators might object to the private regulation of content. For that, he offered a blunt response: ?Let them sue you.?

Under the current system, ISPs post warnings regarding offensive content, but as Farber pointed out, such warnings are meaningless unless enforced.

According to Farber, ISPs need only develop a protocol for removing offensive content without court approval.

[GatorB]

Yes and the first ISP that removes porn wil be out of business. ISPs have no clue as to how many people look at porn.

ISP A bans porn

ISP B doesn't ban porn and is the SAME price as ISP A.

Now which one gets more business?

[Webby]

Mmmm.. Another loose cannon on an agenda...

[gooddomains]

that's fucked up

[biftek]

it just sounds like porn on ISP servers , not banning porn from the isp
no great loss really , plenty of choices out there

[JimmiDean]

It will never happen Rogers and Sympatico make fat to much money of it.
This comes mostly from one over anxiouse zelot with the Jewish congress looking to control internet information.
Make no mistake they wish to control the internet medium and use porn as their crusade.
In the end it will come down to the Canadian charter of rights and our right to freedom of expresion.
The supreme court will never uphold a ban on adult entertainment on the net.

[AtlantisCash]

jewsh bastards dude...

[Fabien]

Religion mother fuckers again at it

They will loose around 40% of the people if they do this as porn is a big part on why people get an internet connection.

In no fucking way will this pass and yes, SUE THE MOFO'S that will have the balls to do it.
What the fuck is this shit ? China ????????????????

These assholes can't think about better stuff to do and trust me, there are lots of things to be taken care of.
Pathetic dumb fucks lol.......

[AtlantisCash]

i don't thing people will give a fuck about that.

[MaddCaz]

could be pretty bad...

[AtlantisCash]

Iran is totaly banning porn, however some of Iranian guys still keep going to visit our Sites ))

[Vitasoy]

I can't see it happening

[chase]

If this is really what they consider a legitimate way to handle this, why don't they apply this theory to cp? If every isp was able to block cp, it would be a lot harder for those sickos to get cp materials. Seems to me that if it were really the objective of the gov't to protect kids, they'd worry about that long before blocking ALL porn.

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yes and the first ISP that removes porn wil be out of business. ISPs have no clue as to how many people look at porn.

ISP A bans porn

ISP B doesn't ban porn and is the SAME price as ISP A.

Now which one gets more business?

Saves me having to type it.

We've maintained two separate broadband accounts with Cogeco for over 7 years, and while their service has been quite good...I have no problem going with another ISP (even dialup, if necessary) if they follow through with banning adult sites.

2 accts @ $47/month ea. That's $1,128 per year they'd be losing just from our house & office alone (not including our cable TV - which we'd ditch as well).

They'd only be biting the hand that feeds them in the long run.

Dumb business move.

[Phoenix]

seems like he has his own version of hate going on
he hates people who are more open towards sexual freedom..it is the basis of his hatred

[rockbear]

I don't think that they will do a move without any ban on porn by the supreme court. MY

[Basic_man]

Ho no ! I hope this shit won't affect us too much

[SilentKnight]

BTW - the phone number for Bernie Farber (the idiot responsible for launching this new proposal on behalf of the Canadian Jewish Council) is (4l6) 635-2883, ext. 186.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/Canada/CJC/FarberFile.html

Give the moron a call and express your views.

[Magnus]

Rogers owns the PPV cable channels, of which 20+ channels are adult. I don't see them doing this at any point.

[L-Pink]

A business should have the right to exclude what to them might be offensive.

Making it a "right" not a "requirement" is the way to handle it.

[Sarah - GTS]

I don't see this ever happening

[BlackCrayon]

if this happens it would be a great opportunity for a kind of 'free speech/thought' type of isp that doesn't pull such communist type tactics.

[SilentKnight]

Xbiz's headline was rather erroneous once you read the entire story. ISP's aren't actually looking to ban porn sites - it was simply a proposal put forward by zealot Bernie Farber to the Canadian Telecom industry.

I doubt the industry is giving much creedance to the clown.

Xbiz is seldom accurate with their news reporting.

[RawAlex]

Silentknoght, you are correct - and more so, they guy is mostly interested in blocking out hate speech against Jews , and is attempting to use the potential to block out other harmfuil things like porn in the same manner, to make his attempting muzzling of people that don't agreee with him look acceptable.

He isn't shy about censorship: http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/200...-chutzpah.html

It isn't a new law, it isn't a new rule, it isn't anything except the blatherings of someone who would want he world to only live his way, by his rules, in his perfect world. Yeesh.

[Fetish Gimp]

Originally Posted by JimmiDean

It will never happen Rogers and Sympatico make fat to much money of it.
This comes mostly from one over anxiouse zelot with the Jewish congress looking to control internet information.

/close this bitch up.

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Silentknoght, you are correct - and more so, they guy is mostly interested in blocking out hate speech against Jews , and is attempting to use the potential to block out other harmfuil things like porn in the same manner, to make his attempting muzzling of people that don't agreee with him look acceptable.

He isn't shy about censorship: http://drdawgsblawg.blogspot.com/200...-chutzpah.html

It isn't a new law, it isn't a new rule, it isn't anything except the blatherings of someone who would want he world to only live his way, by his rules, in his perfect world. Yeesh.

How long before he comes out with, "If you approve of porn...you must be anti-semitic, too!"

This fanatic is startin' to sound like a Canuck version of Rev. Wildmon of the AFA (American Family Association).

[coolegg2]

Well the good news is that the Canadian Jewish Conference has apparently solved a long and difficult legal question which courts around the western world have struggled with for more than 50 years. Namely, what is obscene and what is not.

"It doesn't take a lot to discern what is pornographic."

Like adult webmasters in the US and the UK we Canadian adult webmasters have struggled with not really knowing what is obscene until a court declares it obscene or not - although things have been more clear here in Canada than most other countries. So apparently the Canadian Jewish Congress has it all figured out and the answer is obvious.

Can't wait to hear it.

Waiting...

[SilentKnight]

To them, pornography is easy to define.

"I know porn when I see it. I can't tell you how or why I know its porn. I JUST KNOW! Trust me."

If it causes them to slap the monkey awhile instead of the wife, it must be porno.

[pawsregd]

Originally Posted by Magnus

Rogers owns the PPV cable channels, of which 20+ channels are adult. I don't see them doing this at any point.

Same with Bell owning Sympatico as well as Bell ExpressVU satellite which has the best PPV porn and Videotron being a major ISP as well as cable provider.

[stev0]

I doubt they'd remove legal porn... i think it may be a good thing.

[coolegg2]

Originally Posted by stev0

I doubt they'd remove legal porn... i think it may be a good thing.

That's exactly the point. By removing porn before a court has determined it's legality IS removing legal porn.

[xxxdesign-net]

Who here was against NetNeutrality again...? Same thing will happen in the US...

[DVTimes]

bump.........

[notabook]

I would love to see the ads for the ISP's who don't block porn... would be so easy for them to advert for.
"Blah blah blah features for $xx.xx a month! Oh... AND WE DON'T BLOCK PORN BITCHES!"