Covering Up A Broken Tooth

stupid people are good voters ...

... or such as effective propaganda can be controlled by intentional concealment of important information of the will of the people (Deja Vu?)

will become more


The Federal Government 18.06.2009 has passed a new law, which basically is nothing unusual, but in this case, the understanding of the rule of law fundamentally redefined. What began as amendment of the Telemedia Act to combat child pornography should be established in his name to Access difficulty Law , as it is now considered to be so as an independent law outside of the Telemedia Act.

Just because this law has encountered in its development with considerable criticism from IT and legal experts, a broad consensus of the people is apparently very reassuring, because one is aware of the implications of that company's fully conscious.

Representative polls still seem to be a popular tool to justify their own projects. Are the questions formulated just sent, you can specify the desired outcome in advance.

The play will be staged as follows:

the Ministry of Family, Seniors, Women and Youth through a representative population sample. These were between 29 May and 11 Juni 2009 1832 persons interviewed orally, in person. The results
representative for the German population over 16.

Question 1:
The Federal Government has recently agreed on measures against child pornography, that Internet providers are required to block access to child porn sites. When an Internet user comes to such sites, a large stop sign is displayed, and it does not come anymore. Welcome these measures, or hold it not for the appropriate way to combat child pornography?

The overwhelming survey results confirmed that 91% of respondents welcomed this proposal. Would a different result was expected? Without extensive background information that may in any case most respondents were not available, no one can really expect a much different result. I let the original question, the Institute for Allensbach are completely unchanged so and add add the following information:

alternative has the deletion of child pornography sites and is proven to be classified in its effectiveness demonstrated higher since disappeared blocking or redirect the child porn sites can not, only hidden. A bypass the lock with a few entries already realized by computer amateurs. Hold the stop sign but the most desirable method for measure?

Question 2:
Do you think that the people through these stop signs on the Internet in their right to freedom of information
be restricted too much, or can not find it?

How should someone be able to judge this if it does not explain the background. People who use the Internet anyway, it may seem as if you ask them if they regret that seaweed is not at least once a week is offered in German canteens as a main course. The information required in order to determine the issue in connection with child pornography-issue to be deliberately concealed. I leave the question again in their original version and supplements are so again with information that is essential for the objective evaluation:

An internet surfer who happens to, consciously or unconsciously a stop sign Page in their browser sees is, with its traffic data collected inevitably, as a potential pederast automatically in the prosecution file of the BKA. Although the latter was dismissed by now, does not change the fact that a basic data acquisition is possible. But the BKA to determine which content on the Internet at the stop sign or be diverted while an external committee will randomly check the CRL. As this body is composed, is unknown before the adoption of the law. Evidence from countries that perform those restricted activities have already confirmed that not only the child pornography Have fallen victim to censorship. On the contrary, child pornography were proportionally represented in the single digits. Represent you for this finding, the opinion that the right to freedom of information to be very limited or not?

found 90% of respondents without this additional information that the right to freedom of information would not be very limited ...

Question 3:
entertain Here are two about whether the blocking of Internet sites with child pornography is the right way to combat child pornography. Which (r) of two says rather what you think?

opinion 1:
"Although I am of the opinion that child pornography must be fought, but the blocking of Internet sites go too far. It can not be that the state determines what the individual may look at the web and what not. In this way the freedom of citizens
is limited to very "

opinion 2:
. I see things differently. Freedom of information has its limits, and when it comes to child pornography, this limit is exceeded. Therefore, access to Internet sites are blocked with the content. "

is sent to the think a embedded in an underlying negative statement which suggests inconspicuous: "You can look at what you want, including child pornography"
course, one should not consciously look at child pornography (may) , which was also already sufficiently regulated by law. Someone who does not have pedophilic disposition is, do not consciously anyway. As is proved that the stop sign so the content does not eliminate from the Internet and a bypass is relatively easy, you can delete this question if the deletion of this content would have been followed consistently ...

By the way, joined in 90% of respondents believe 2 and I do without this time on an informative complement to the question, since a tiny aspect was removed from a complex topic and the meaning distorted ...

Question 4: Do
you that with these measures success and can reduce the use of child pornography on the Internet, or do you think that those who want to see something related, still a way to get hold of these pages?

A question with the phrase "Believe ..." begins can hardly expect more than estimates. The gut feeling of people with completely different level of knowledge is to bring a representative result? After all, "believe" 62% of respondents said that those who intend to continue to be achieved. As a reasonably critical survey participants, with or without the relevant background information, I would have expressed the following as a counter-question: "Is there no more promising measures?"

Question 5:
entertain Here are two about whether the blocking of Internet sites with child pornography is the right way to combat child pornography. Which (r) of two says rather what you think?

opinion 1:
"I do not think it will help to block access to websites with child pornography. Who searches the Internet child porn,
will they find, no matter how many sites are blocked. Therefore, such a blockade is necessary, "

opinion 2:
. I see things differently. Even if you stay with such a blockade, not all may be deterred from it but many users. I therefore believe that such a lock on
absolutely necessary. "

The question has already been wrong. What users are held up because of the blockade or which user wants to stop it? Federal Family Minister Ursula von der Leyen has also developed a very unique proposition: She thinks that opportunity Surfer "hooked" by the use of child pornography. She believes that pedophilia can be compared with drug or alcohol addiction. She is also the view that people will develop low-pedophile assessment by relevant offers unlimited Internet in an increased demand. I can tell this is not and therefore do not go further on the matter. However, I doubt that people run without this disposition, by the random calls of child porn sites, the risk of being a pedophile. Furthermore, I also doubt that without Intent on child pornography comes when you do not explicitly receive a link under false pretense, or already have a surfing behavior that is located in the nearby environment.
represented 82% of respondents believe 2. In this I see no contradiction, however, scares me a child pornography site clearly from more than a stop sign. The 1 Case would cause a shock effect which would cause me to act on the cancellation of this website and the punishment of the perpetrators down. In the 2nd Case, I would take the stop sign just read and ask me why the website has been surfing on the block list ...
... and here begins a new chapter

Why is the requested website on the block list of the BKA?
Is she landed wrong about that?
Or has identified the BKA child pornography, but was not able to obtain a cancellation?
Why could not delete a page with a proven child pornography, so the second Instance (the blockade) was applied?

wooden eye be watchful!

Click here for previous articles: of imbecility fat booty