Internet Censorship, bigotry, and what to do?

[Nova Andromeda]

-Today's lesson in internet censorships provided by Net Authority:

About This Policy
If you have ever read an acceptable use policy before, you are probably aware that they are long, drawn-out documents often written in highly obfuscated language intended more for confusing the reader than actually providing useful information. Since this policy applies to the entire Internet, we felt that it should be spelled out as simply and as universally understandable as possible.

As a result of this, we decided that the best way to write this document would be to model it after something that everyone knows and follows (or at least should!) in their daily lives already. We chose God's own law—The Ten Commandments. To help keep things simple though, we have narrowed it down to five simple rules.

Internet Acceptable Use Policy
Posting information or content in any form on the Internet constitutes acceptance of and agreement to the Net Authority Internet Acceptable Use Policy.

Thou shalt not post pornographic material.
There is a common misconception that pornography is limited purely to images or textual descriptions of an explicit sexual nature. This is not the case. Anything that can evoke impure thoughts in the mind of the beholder is pornographic.

Thou shalt not post hateful material.
Any material that promotes or inspires hatred or violence towards any other person or group of people is strictly forbidden.

Thou shalt not post blasphemous material.
Any material that would lead one astray from the righteous path of the one true God must not be permitted on the Internet. These days children are gaining access to the Internet at younger and younger ages—a time when they are most vulnerable and susceptible to blasphemous viewpoints and suggestions.

Thou shalt not post materials of an offensive political nature.
Thou shalt not post materials concerning bestiality, including interracial relationships.
God did not intend for different species or races to intermingle sexually. Any content that contradicts this natural law, directly or indirectly, is strictly forbidden.

-According to this brain dead group Mr. Wong (as well as a number of other SDnet'ers) engages in bestiality on a regular basis.
-My questions is what can or should be done about this? Should the government intervene? Can one win a lawsuit for hate crimes?

[Stark]

That's high larious.

I'd never heard of these guys before, so I poked around their site. I found their mission statement. It is, and I'm not kidding here,

To provide a set of guidelines to which all content posted on the Internet must adhere, and to hold responsible those individuals who would knowingly break those guidelines.

These people are either satirists or retards. The best part is the picture of some woman in the 80s working on a giant 80s computer. BECAUSE THAT'S THE INTERNET MAN.

[Flagg]

According to this brain dead group Mr. Wong (as well as a number of other SDnet'ers) engages in bestiality on a regular basis.
-My questions is what can or should be done about this? Should the government intervene? Can one win a lawsuit for hate crimes?

No, according to these lovely eurudite cumbuckets, Wongs wife is engaging in bestiality. Isn't racism fun?

[chitoryu12]

There is a common misconception that pornography is limited purely to images or textual descriptions of an explicit sexual nature. This is not the case. Anything that can evoke impure thoughts in the mind of the beholder is pornographic.

I take it the creator has never been to a public high school before? Just sitting in my English class would make him go wild with religious frenzy.

Now here's what gets me in that good ol' homicidal mood sometimes:

Thou shalt not post materials concerning bestiality, including interracial relationships.
God did not intend for different species or races to intermingle sexually. Any content that contradicts this natural law, directly or indirectly, is strictly forbidden.

So, Mike, since when did you become a different creature from I?

[Stark]

He's a fucking lot smarter than you, how's that for starters? LOL!

I'm finding it hard to take that site as anything other than parody the more I read. Everything from the site layout to the images used has GOT to be a joke. The content itself is just cookie-cutter nutjob stuff.

[Flagg]

That's high larious.

I'd never heard of these guys before, so I poked around their site. I found their mission statement. It is, and I'm not kidding here,

To provide a set of guidelines to which all content posted on the Internet must adhere, and to hold responsible those individuals who would knowingly break those guidelines.

These people are either satirists or retards. The best part is the picture of some woman in the 80s working on a giant 80s computer. BECAUSE THAT'S THE INTERNET MAN.

I'm almost certain they are satirists. Just this alone:

How to Spot a Violation
While our database contains many of the websites that are in obvious violation of the Internet Acceptable Use Policy, it is not uncommon to come across websites that seem to be fine, but in actuality are some of the worst violators of all. It is these websites that can easily be mistaken for perfectly acceptable content that are the most dangerous to our children.

It is important to keep an eye out, and constantly ask yourself if what you are seeing is in violation or not. Some perfectly innocent looking sites can actually turn out to be blatantly profane sources of perversity for an unsuspecting young child. Instead of trying to enumerate every single thing to look out for, here are some examples for you to learn from and think about.

Example #1: Baby Photos Website. Everybody loves looking at babies! A baby photo website with pictures of babies from all over the world would be a wonderful attraction. There is, however, a common misconception that portraying infants in the nude is an acceptable practice, since the genitalia is not yet well-formed enough to be considered profane. This is far from the case! You and I may not get impure thoughts from looking at innocent babies, but there are perverts out there who do! By providing pictures of babies at all, and especially in the nude, this fictional website would only be fueling these perverts' desires and making society a more dangerous place to live in. This website should certainly be added to our database as a pornography offender.

Example #2: Children's Dinosaur Stories. You might think that a site that contains stories about dinosaurs for children would be innocent—but let's stop and think about that for a moment. If you read the bible (you should, it's great!) you know that dinosaurs never actually existed, and that God put those fossils and bones there to test our faith in Him. While the stories themselves may not contain any offensive material, the simple fact that they are about dinosaurs may cause a child to question his faith in the one true God. By blaspheming, this site is in violation of the Internet Acceptable Use Policy and should be added to our database.

Example #3: Family Farm Website. A personal website detailing one's adventures on the family farm sounds like a lot of fun! Especially if there are photos of the farm animals and equipment. Such a website would be very entertaining to old and young minds alike! But imagine that some of the photos of animals included the animal genitalia in plain sight. This is hardly something that young children should be looking at, and especially not to be associated with the joy of viewing a fun website. By associating a feeling of joy with animal genitalia, this website would be an extreme danger to children and should definitely be added to the Net Authority database as a bestiality offender.

As you can see, even some of the most innocent-seeming websites should actually be considered some of the most offensive and dangerous of all. Keeping this in mind, it should become easier in time for you to spot offensive websites. It is important to report these violations to us using the form below, so that others may benefit from your find as well.

[Nova Andromeda]

According to this brain dead group Mr. Wong (as well as a number of other SDnet'ers) engages in bestiality on a regular basis.
-My questions is what can or should be done about this? Should the government intervene? Can one win a lawsuit for hate crimes?

No, according to these lovely eurudite cumbuckets, Wongs wife is engaging in bestiality. Isn't racism fun?

-Oh. Clearly I haven't studied the subject enough. I figured they were both guilty. What if Mrs./Mr. Wong is multiracial (like many americans / used to want to be americans 8 years ago)?

[chitoryu12]

He's a fucking lot smarter than you, how's that for starters? LOL!

He's a fucking lot smarter than most people I know anyways, so that's not a shock.

[Flagg]

According to this brain dead group Mr. Wong (as well as a number of other SDnet'ers) engages in bestiality on a regular basis.
-My questions is what can or should be done about this? Should the government intervene? Can one win a lawsuit for hate crimes?

No, according to these lovely eurudite cumbuckets, Wongs wife is engaging in bestiality. Isn't racism fun?

-Oh. Clearly I haven't studied the subject enough. I figured they were both guilty. What if Mrs./Mr. Wong is multiracial (like many americans / used to want to be americans 8 years ago)?

Nope. Wong, being non-white is clearly not human. A "mud-person" if you will. Therefore he is clearly no more guilty of bestiality than is Catherine the Greats horse.

[Nova Andromeda]

-Okay, congratulations, you've figured out it was a parody pretty quickly. Nevertheless, what should be done about sites that aren't parodies?

[Flagg]

-Okay, congratulations, you've figured out it was a parody pretty quickly. Nevertheless, what should be done about sites that aren't parodies?

Ridicule. That's about all you can do.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

-Okay, congratulations, you've figured out it was a parody pretty quickly. Nevertheless, what should be done about sites that aren't parodies?

Ridicule. That's about all you can do.

While bringing large amounts of attention to it. Something Awful, Portal of Evil, and Digg are good ones to use.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

netauthority.org = [ 64.246.44.100 ]

(Asked whois.pir.org:43 about netauthority.org)

Domain ID: D72623003-LROR
Domain Name: NETAUTHORITY.ORG
Created On: 14-Jun-2001 03: 10: 45 UTC
Last Updated On: 25-Jun-2007 00: 26: 50 UTC
Expiration Date: 14-Jun-2008 03: 10: 45 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar: GoDaddy.com Inc. (R91-LROR)
Status: CLIENT DELETE PROHIBITED
Status: CLIENT RENEW PROHIBITED
Status: CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED
Status: CLIENT UPDATE PROHIBITED
Registrant ID: GODA-030358924
Registrant Name: Rudis Muiznieks
Registrant Organization: Rudis Muiznieks
Registrant Street1: 1930 NE 13th Ct
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City: Cape Coral
Registrant State/Province: Florida
Registrant Postal Code: 33909
Registrant Country: US
Registrant Phone: 1.2399386632
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email: rudis@sitosis.com

Admin ID: GODA-230358924
Admin Name: Rudis Muiznieks
Admin Organization: Rudis Muiznieks
Admin Street1: 1930 NE 13th Ct
Admin Street2:
Admin Street3:
Admin City: Cape Coral
Admin State/Province: Florida
Admin Postal Code: 33909
Admin Country: US
Admin Phone: 1.2399386632
Admin Phone Ext.:
Admin FAX:
Admin FAX Ext.:
Admin Email: rudis@sitosis.com

Tech ID: GODA-130358924
Tech Name: Rudis Muiznieks
Tech Organization: Rudis Muiznieks
Tech Street1: 1930 NE 13th Ct
Tech Street2:
Tech Street3:
Tech City: Cape Coral
Tech State/Province: Florida
Tech Postal Code: 33909
Tech Country: US
Tech Phone: 1.2399386632
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email: rudis@sitosis.com

Name Server: NS1.RELADEV.NET
Name Server: NS2.RELADEV.NET

http://www.rudism.com/ confirms the parody.

[Metatwaddle]

It's too bad they aren't as intimately acquainted with creationism as most of SDN is. The creationist consensus is that dinosaurs did exist - at the same time as us - but that God put their fossils deep into the ground and, uh, took away a lot of the equivalent of carbon-14 (I can't remember what dating system they use for ~100 million year old fossils) from the fossils, and that part was testing our faith.

Maybe someone should send them a message.

[fgalkin]

-Okay, congratulations, you've figured out it was a parody pretty quickly. Nevertheless, what should be done about sites that aren't parodies?

Ignore them? What else is there to do?

And how could you not know of Net Authority? It's only been around for what, 6 years?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Zablorg]

This whole "different races are impure" thing has given me a cool idea to fuck around with their heads:

Say human cloning gets a try (It's been banned in my region), and it's a success. These things would have short lifespan as wittnessed in clones, but meh. This alone would cause fundies to go insane.

Ok, suppose you can perfect the cloning technique so that it works perfectly. You get a the DNA of an asian person and a causian human, put them into eggs, and let them become embryos. Then you fuse those embryos together to get what geneticists call a "chimera", an organism consisting of more than one population of cells.

So essentially you would have a clone (horror upon horrors!) that is also a fusion of an asian and a causian (DUN DUN DUUUNN!!!)

This I think, would erase the fundie problem because they would all die of a sploded heads.

Sorry about the size of the post.

[Vendetta]

It's too bad they aren't as intimately acquainted with creationism as most of SDN is. The creationist consensus is that dinosaurs did exist - at the same time as us - but that God put their fossils deep into the ground and, uh, took away a lot of the equivalent of carbon-14 (I can't remember what dating system they use for ~100 million year old fossils) from the fossils, and that part was testing our faith.

Maybe someone should send them a message.

This is presumably because God predicted the existence of Paleontologists, and likes a practical joke as much as the next omnipotence. I mean look at the Book of Job, he'll spend a fair old amount of time fucking with one guy, just for shits and giggles.

[PeZook]

Thou shalt not post materials of an offensive political nature.
Thou shalt not post materials concerning bestiality, including interracial relationships.
God did not intend for different species or races to intermingle sexually. Any content that contradicts this natural law, directly or indirectly, is strictly forbidden.

You know, I DID see that one posted in all seriousness by a fundie somewhere.

Of course, any idiot could go "So God didn't mean for various races to intermingle, but made their genitalia and DNA perfectly compatible, huh?"

One has to wonder how intelligent of a designer is proposed by ID idiots

[chitoryu12]

Thou shalt not post materials of an offensive political nature.
Thou shalt not post materials concerning bestiality, including interracial relationships.
God did not intend for different species or races to intermingle sexually. Any content that contradicts this natural law, directly or indirectly, is strictly forbidden.

You know, I DID see that one posted in all seriousness by a fundie somewhere.

Of course, any idiot could go "So God didn't mean for various races to intermingle, but made their genitalia and DNA perfectly compatible, huh?"

One has to wonder how intelligent of a designer is proposed by ID idiots

Maybe He wanted to expose us to temptation to see how faithful we were to His law? God is notorious for random faith tests (Who did he ask to sacrifice his own son to prove his faith? His name escapes me.).

[wautd]

Thou shalt not post materials of an offensive political nature.
Thou shalt not post materials concerning bestiality, including interracial relationships.
God did not intend for different species or races to intermingle sexually. Any content that contradicts this natural law, directly or indirectly, is strictly forbidden.

You know, I DID see that one posted in all seriousness by a fundie somewhere.

Of course, any idiot could go "So God didn't mean for various races to intermingle, but made their genitalia and DNA perfectly compatible, huh?"

One has to wonder how intelligent of a designer is proposed by ID idiots

Maybe He wanted to expose us to temptation to see how faithful we were to His law? God is notorious for random faith tests (Who did he ask to sacrifice his own son to prove his faith? His name escapes me.).

Abraham