freedombreeze Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 I am encountering more frequently messages of censorship on the internet. For example, Today I tried to access a video clip on Hulu.com ( ) from Canada and got this message: "We're Sorry currently our video library can only be streamed in the United States. For more information on Hulu's international availability, click here." Following that link informed me "Hulu now available in Japan". Canada seems to have some content from Hulu but very minimal and many streams are blocked. What are others impressions of internet censorship. Your experience could help shed light on our dwindling freedom of information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SapereAude Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 I wouldn't jump to the conclusion right off hand that this is censorship. Depending on what you were trying to watch it could have been any number of things, including a licensing agreement. Some things will be licensed for showing in some countries and not others, and some things are licensed to be viewed on some forms of equipment and not others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freedombreeze Posted September 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2011 here I wouldn't jump to the conclusion right off hand that this is censorship. Depending on what you were trying to watch it could have been any number of things, including a licensing agreement. Some things will be licensed for showing in some countries and not others, and some things are licensed to be viewed on some forms of equipment and not others. Censorship is imposed through public licensing by governments who have the power to filter and funnel information. For example, in Canada there is a "Heritage Minister" and a CRTC (Canadian Radio and Television Commission) who police all media content in Canada or crossing the border. Ayn Rand wrote extensively on how government controls information through licensing the airwaves. Alex Epstein said, Under the "public" airwaves regime, businesses do not own but merely "license" portions of spectrum--which the government has total authority to control in the "public interest." The use of spectrum is determined, not by the business that has purchased and earned it, but by the FCC--by whatever it feels is in the indefinable "public interest." In the realm of media, FCC bureaucrats can effectively censor viewpoints they dislike by revoking broadcast licenses or imposing huge fines. In the realm of wireless data, FCC bureaucrats and Congress can impose more onerous terms on a paying licensee anytime they wish--such as Google's proposal that licensees be forced to sell large portions of their bandwidth to competitors at FCC-dictated "reasonable" rates, no matter what it does to their business. In all such cases, the creators with the best ideas and the willingness to prove them in a free market are throttled by lobbyists and government officials who can wheel and deal in Washington--and innovation suffers accordingly. Americans need to start recognizing airwaves as the private property they really are, and demand the abolition of the FCC. Then the government can hold a fair and just auction for the 700 MHz spectrum, and the others, in which each spectrum is not licensed but sold--no strings attached. Find the whole article here. Also Read "Property Status of the Airwaves" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand. Censorship is not determined by a free market but by a bureaucrat through licensing (permission). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.