- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
In a petition launched in favour of NLB’s action by Singaporeans Unite For Family, the supporting argument was that NLB was merely “looking after the interests of children” and it was their (NLB’s) “duty” to act as such. By extension, this would also imply that parents ought to surrender their roles as a guiding light in their own children’s development to the state. And do so willingly too!
Even if the intellectual horizons of these people are as narrow as a street alley, why should they have the power to limit those who would seek to broaden their sights? It is within the rights of these conservatives to enforce bans on such materials within their households but to pursue a general ban through the use of state power is resplendent of a totalitarian state and despotism.
In Singapore, the possession of satellite television, wide–spectrum radios and various other communicative devices are heavily regulated if not entirely prohibited. And now, we also know that the national public libraries are not immune to state intervention.
The Internet, as one of the last bastions of free speech and expression is also about to or has already come under heavy regulatory scrutiny with the introduction of new ‘licencing’ rules covering websites with an excess of 50,000 unique views from the country. The use of the word ‘licensing’ is but a government euphemism for state oversight. The “performance bond” of S$50,000 is also but a ransom and a threat to force news and web companies to toe a state sanctioned line of reporting.
Of course, every one of these actions may be done with good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This regulatory state is now atop a slippery slope for...
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...her-instance-of-state-intervention-in-family/
Even if the intellectual horizons of these people are as narrow as a street alley, why should they have the power to limit those who would seek to broaden their sights? It is within the rights of these conservatives to enforce bans on such materials within their households but to pursue a general ban through the use of state power is resplendent of a totalitarian state and despotism.
In Singapore, the possession of satellite television, wide–spectrum radios and various other communicative devices are heavily regulated if not entirely prohibited. And now, we also know that the national public libraries are not immune to state intervention.
The Internet, as one of the last bastions of free speech and expression is also about to or has already come under heavy regulatory scrutiny with the introduction of new ‘licencing’ rules covering websites with an excess of 50,000 unique views from the country. The use of the word ‘licensing’ is but a government euphemism for state oversight. The “performance bond” of S$50,000 is also but a ransom and a threat to force news and web companies to toe a state sanctioned line of reporting.
Of course, every one of these actions may be done with good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. This regulatory state is now atop a slippery slope for...
http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/201...her-instance-of-state-intervention-in-family/
