What does McAfee software have to do with Rs or Ds?That's a rather large group, wouldn't you say?

Apparently, MacAfee is an obsequious sycophantic fanatic. Of the D's I assume.

It is. Unfortunately not large enough.

__________________
1984 300TD

My point was that we have gotten to the point where a single person at McAfee or another so called Internet Rating Host determines what you can see on your browser. In this case the person determined on her own somehow that DS and Atlasshrugged were hate mongers. Do we want a single person having this control over what WE can see? In this particular case even McAfee realized that this was a mistake and corrected the ratings (after DS threatened them with a lawsuit)

The Internet should be an open forum for all sides be they right, left, center, Nazi, Commie, etc.

For all the lefties here who think this is a joke, free speech is only free when the opinions you hate the most are allowed to be heard...

__________________
"I have no convictions ... I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy"

Current
Monika '74 450 SL
BrownHilda '79 280SL
FoxyCleopatra '99 Chevy Suburban
Scarlett 2014 Jeep Cherokee
Krystal 2004 Volvo S60
Gone
'74 Jeep CJ5
'97 Jeep ZJ Laredo
Rudolf ‘86 300SDL
Bruno '81 300SD
Fritzi '84 BMW
'92 Subaru
'96 Impala SS
'71 Buick GS conv
'67 GTO conv
'63 Corvair conv
'57 Nomad

What you are saying makes no sense. The First Amendment applies to the government, not to private businesses. The Left is not really known for it's opposition to free speech, you are making up a boogey man, in fact, this entire thread is laughable and stupid, and you offer zero evidence that this event you cite has anything to do with, well anything. Dude, you are drinking way, way too much Koolaid. When the US government does something to limit your access to the Internet, get back to us. Private businesses are under no obligation to enforce the 1st Amendment, to test this, send the females in your office links to Hustler's web site, or better yet, surf it while your boss looks over your shoulder while congratulating him for allowing it to get thru his firewall so that you can enjoy your 1st Amendment rights. Let us all know how that works out. And like I said, I've looked at her site and urge others to as well, she posts obscene gestures and allows racist comments in her blog posting, and if I operated an Internet hosting business and didn't want her garbage on my servers, I would be fully within my rights, I owe no one "the right of free speech" on my private property, and that's what an Internet server is, private property, and this woman, a lawyer who gets her way by bullying people with threats of junk lawsuits, has no "violation" of her 1st Amendment rights that I can see.

This happens all the time. You don't decide what gets played on the radio or tv for example. Unless you're a tv/radio producer.

Not on a company computer.

Not a joke, but companies decide how you use their computers.

__________________
1984 300TD

The person in question was apparently working in good faith and made an error, which was corrected quickly. Prove me wrong. Furthermore, if you're truly mortified about the prospect of one person determining the content of an information venue, brace yourself for this next phrase: Newspaper Editor.

I doubt that a company the size of McAfee was rocked to the core by the threat of a lawsuit from one disgruntled blogger. Again, an error was made and was quickly corrected. Non-drama.

Nothing McAfee did prevented the existence of the site in question. Their filtering services, voluntarily purchased by their customers, had briefly and erroneously prevented access to the site.

Your post is overheated, hysterical, foil-hat-esque...

Does that include porn?

I really think I hear more whining from the right.
And free speech is one of the basic tenets of our society, one that many brave people have given their lives for, so don't just assume that the other side of the aisle doesn't get it.
Now you will have to excuse me, my foil hat needs another layer.

Kiddie porn is free speech. But I cannot imagine a reasonable person believing there is any redeeming social or artistic value in it. So I think the overwhelming majority of people are very supportive of laws sanctioning kiddie pornographers.

So is "free" speech actually open only to that speech which is normative to society?

I think if we let the twisted thoughts breathe a bit we can all list any number of things that we accept as evil without a second thought and applaud absolute suppression of those activities & behaviors. Some taboos are so strong that nobody is willing to take the side in an argument in which they must advocate for those behaviors. Is that rational?

Botnst emerges as an advocate of kiddie porn? Please, please you are giving me way too much ammunition....

Good to see you're drinking again.