OK, Cameron, shit just got real…
If UK Prime minister David Cameron gets his way, esoteric sites such as this one will be banned in the UK.
In a move not seen since the repeal of the Witchcraft Act, Cameron wants his “porn filter” tuned to delete “esoteric interests.”
The discovery that occultism was on the list of filtered content was found using an a freedom of information request. It is not as if David was prepared to tell people who did not look first.
It is not clear what Cameron has against the occult, maybe the thought of people dancing naked in the New Forrest brings him out in a cold sweat. But occultists, witches and druids, can be reassured that their religion, beliefs and philosophises will be purged from the British web in order to “protect children”.
The man who cares about his own child enough to leave her in a pub because they…
View original post 168 more words
6 responses to “David Cameron starts his own inquisition against magic”
Reblogged this on steve emmett and commented:
So, as an author who uses the internet for research into the occult and other matters, I’m now going to be classed along with porn? This is an outrage and an offront to liberty.
Pah-leese! In the inimitable words of Frank McCourt, “We were all perfectly good pagans, once.”
I find it highly unlikely that any elected official would know, absolutely, what is best for anyone when it comes to knowledge. Ancient knowledge got to that point, because it came first, and I really doubt that anyone, including the science community can say it has no value for us now.
On the other hand, if whom he wants to wage war against are charlatans who use flim-flam to separate desperate or sad people from their funds, then by all means, wage your war, but leave real seekers (and writers) and their resources alone.
Why should being a charlatan have anything to do with being censored?
Sites (esoteric or not) that actually do cheat people out of money are already subject to consumer protection legislation, and hence do not require censorship.
By saying wage your wars and leave wars and leave real writers alone, you are actually saying you approve of censorship and that you want to abdicate the power to decide who is a “real” writer or not to the Government, instead of leaving it with the people and the “free market place of ideas.”
Censorship? How on earth did you derive that from my comment? Inherent in the word charlatan is deception with intent to defraud. If punishing fraud is censorship, then I guess even as a writer I would have to support that, but if what the UK PM wants to do is kill sites that disseminate either interpreted fiction or ancient knowledge, then that is literary censorship which all writers should fight. I don’t consider Con spiels as having literary or even self-expressive merit. So shoot me.
In order to determine whether someone is a charlatan or not, another person has to make a judgement whether that person is a charlatan. That is the very nature of censorship. Now: who would you chose to be the person to make that judgement? A politician? A civil servant? The unelected chairman of a QUANGO?
The fact is that history has shown that a great number of hypocrites have tried to justify censorship by accusing someone against whom they entertain animus of being a charlatan, etc, and said “He doesn’t matter – he doesn’t count.” If freedom of speech actually means a damn, then it means guaranteeing freedom of speech for people whose views you don’t necessarily like.
People who purport to get money out of people are already subject to legislation to make sure they deal fairly. Hence it is not necessary to censor them, as David Cameron seems to be proposing to do, but to make sure they abide by the laws which already exist.
If they are a flim-flam merchant, far better that the public are fully informed so that they can exercise their own discretion as to whether to read their web-site or not, rather than have some politician or holier-than-thou person decide the matter for them.
Excellent point. Politicians often overreach trying to stop infrequent specific acts, but gathering everything else in the net. Thanks for the well-argued answer. Of course, no one has the true credentials to make blanket judgements and there are protective laws already on the books, so what do you think he is actually up to?