The United Nations has a radical, dangerous vision for the future of the Web

Yes free speech is "say whatever you want"

What do you think it should be?

> Free speech is not "say whatever you want."

Parent clearly defines "free speech" as "they will not censor anything legal", which the websites above unfortunately don't follow.

> Child pornography is not free speech.

Ironically, in many jurisdictions "child pornography" includes virtual child pornography and cartoons, which any sensible person would say should be free (we can see movies depicting children getting murdered, people getting decapitated and women getting raped, but not of 17 year olds having sex?!?)

David Finkelhor, a sociologist who directs the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, sees the moral weight of the law , but not the empirical proof. “The evidence doesn’t yet tell us to what extent the experience of being a pornography victim aggravates the experience of the sexual abuse itself. How do you separate it out?”. What the law says is equivalent to aying voodoo is real. No one has to actually commit a crime they just have a look at an image or have a thought and they are guilty of the crime. A person that observes a digital image that has no form or life then through osmosis gives those images or objects a legal force, a power, is practicing voo-doo. To make things easy judges have allowed government prosecutors use of those unseen images in a computer file that have nor hold no power to communicate in the courtroom. Before long, the people are ensnared by the compulsion to give power to a thing of their own definition. www.truthmovement.us

If government gets involved then its likely going to be all or nothing.

That is actually not true, see for example:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/01/the-darkest-...

By perpetuating this false stereotype, you're doing more harm to gender equality than harassment does. Online harassment can be bad - I've suffered it myself - but at least it's fairly equal in harming everyone.

The stereotype that men are harassers and women are victims arises because there are a few famous women that have been harassed very publicly. Why have there been more famous cases of women than men, when surveys do not find a large gender difference in actual harassment? I suspect it's that very stereotype of women as victims. It's an easy narrative to fall into, as you are doing right here.

And, conversely, the Internet is not all rosy. The fact of the matter is we've opened up a real Pandora's box. This is the first time in human history we've enabled people to really be bombarded by public opinion in instant, rapid numbers at every moment they express a viewpoint. It's the first time the marketplace of ideas is out there in its true colors. Humans simply aren't used to this. It's perfectly normal that a lot will break down at the immense cognitive overload.

However, one thing annoys me. The idea that this is purely a women's issue, and how it's presented as a culture war over gender and feminism. In fact, this is a very recent development, and it seems to me that the zeitgeist on the subject changes cyclically. It used to be trolling, and it was acknowledged it happened to everyone. Don't feed the trolls, don't share public info on the Internet. But then, as social media totally subverted that, it became "cyberbullying". And though it was still acknowledged it occurred to all, it became a matter of imminent policy decision. Now, it has gone further off the edge. It's no longer trolling or cyberbullying, it's harassment and it has suddenly been morphed into an identity politics issue. What tripe.

I expect that soon this will change, of course. Some other neologism or term with a corresponding narrative will usurp the current gender feminist understanding. That's how it appears to work, observing prior historical precedent.

The way I see it, there's two real options: a) Humans must adapt to this new circumstance and learn to be more resilient in the face of a new reality, one where they are under constant global supervision for their words, or b) We must lower our dependence on the Internet and have decent analog/low-tech fallbacks to how our societal institutions operate instead of marching in full digital for everything. The latter, quite clearly will not happen. This leaves us with a).

Regulatory decisions will not work. The regulatory bodies do not understand the problem. I don't think any of us do. We have to learn to deal with the revolution we have started, as there's no reversing it.

Why don't they just turn off the computer?

Can you elaborate on this a bit? For instance, what about Kim Davis? Or extending Kim Davis' claims only a very little, those Mennonites and Quakers who pay only 48% of their Federal Income Tax because their religion makes them very uncomforable with the 52% of federal spending that goes to Department of Defense. And yes, I may have the exact percentage wrong, don't pick nits.

Do you really believe that? Think about where that goes.

Similarly, I claim that in a free and open society, with lively and vibrant debate constantly transpiring in the metaphorical agora, it is your job to _not be offended_ by things that other people say, not their job _to avoid offending you_.

> Democracy means that people get to live in the society they want to live in.

is not true. It means they have a say, but we don't always get what we want. We might all not want to die of old age, for example. We might also all want to live in a society free of crime, but that will never happen either.

The other alternative is that famous people are being harassed. In which case... well... that happens to famous people in real life too. It doesn't matter if you are online, once you have fame, your life is going to be harassment anywhere. You just need to make a sudonym personal account and not present yourself publicly on forums like facebook or twitter, and only share your new handles with people you trust.

As the Pew link posted earlier pointed out, men get harassed more than women on the internet. So, looks like the answer is yes.