zt:关于google事件的思考

第一条是中性的。第二条可能会导致正义民众对野蛮执法的阻止，也可能导致暴民对正常执法的阻挠。真正让人担心的是第三类消息。因为这一条无法马上证明为真还是证明为伪的消息，可能导致难以想象的毁灭效果！也就是说消息本身会马上导致行为，而行为本身不再是中性的，无害的。

“温云松”属于哪一条？

在我看来，在“温云松”相关的搜索结果能够正常显示前，任何关于“网络审查制度”的辩护都是BULL SHIT！

[本帖最后由 泰勒德顿 于 2010-1-26 23:02 编辑]

呵呵，这事没法细说啊

搜索“温云松”会导致难以想象的毁灭效果。。。。。

你的证据在哪？
zt：www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/freedom1.html
(2)Causingpanic:The classic example of speech which isnot protectedbythe First Amendment, because itcauses panic, is falsely shouting"fire"in a crowded theater.(2)Thisis narrowly limited to situations in which a reasonable person wouldknowthat it was very likely that his or her speech would really cause harmto others. We can imagine works of art which might cause real panicamongthe audience, perhaps a contemporary version of Orson Welles' War oftheWorlds, which caused considerable panic when it first aired on theradio,and in turn was based onH.G.Wells The War of the Worlds.
[size=-1]
（2）.Thisclassic exception is credited to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes: "Themoststringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falselyshouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." (I) Schenck v. UnitedStates, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).Return to text

就像好的足球裁判，就是让观众感觉不到裁判的存在。

不是说不能有监管，但是好的监管不能影响普通网民正常使用网络。