EU plans to end US Internet control

[Jessterw]

It is purely a matter of public decency. Sure, it's puritanical and outdated in some ways, but it's not like the display of such is completely banned and punishable by some extreme measure. Society at large has just upheld a decision that certain body parts shouldn't be outright visible in most cases.

It's no different than pubic hair being censored in Japan. Nevermind that this is a diversion from the topic at hand.

[Nowhere]

Gurm, why you're doing such a big deal of this "restricted freedom of speech in other places" thing? It's not about giving other places total control of the Internet, only the part which is "theirs" anyway. What's wrong with that? Nobody would dictate what US could do on its soil.
BTW, don't pretend that US is a bastion of free speach. Can you really criticize some corporation without any risk of beeing sued? Can you reverse-engineer programs itself? (uhmm...word describing exact practise escaped me) Or can you announce publicly ways to circumvent copy protection and host tools for it? How about posting torrent files?

And why you contradict yourself with "nipples" thing. Public thinks it's not OK, so it's OK it is banned? It's preciselly what majority of population in France think about Scientology probably, and so on...

[Jessterw]

I'm not defending our stance on freedom of speech, or rather, that it doesn't have its fair share of inconsistencies. I was simply commenting that freedom of speech on the net is a different beast than those same and other freedoms in society.

Edit: Not quite sure if you're responding to me, Gurm, or some of the others, as you've misattributed certain statements, or rather, clumped them together...

Yes we can criticise a corporation without being sued, we cannot however publicly defame any person or entity. There is a difference even if it is splitting hairs. You are right that current laws have made reverse engineering and copy protection circumvention a precarious practice that can be viewed as illegal. It is not something most Americans wanted and there are counters to these laws.

Public display of a woman's nipples is not banned here. There are many cases where it is publicly allowed for, but as a general rule, public nudity is not condoned and can result in a fine or brief jail time. It all depends on the conditions of each incident. That said, Americans as a society generally feel that the outright display of a woman's nipples (or the genital areas of both sexes) is an afront to public decency. We feel the same way about hate speech, but under our Constitution it is allowed, to a degree. It's not all black and white as you are making it sound.

[Nowhere]

I'm mostly fighting with, promoted in some posts above, view that its "all white". (and that it would be much worse if...)

[cjolley]

Ok, now I have a split topic. LOL!

---------------

1. Al Gore:

If you don't like Gore just say so. You don't have to make up this complex web illogic to accomplish that.
From the Snopes article:

If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while President, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Ike meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

Ok, now I have a split topic. LOL!

2. Freedom of Speech:

If you think that the Internet would, in the hands of the EU or UN, remain the bastion of free speech that it is today... then you are seriously deluded.
...

You go boy.

Ok, now I have a split topic. LOL!

3. Nipples:

Gotta love em'