In cheapest generic compazine many cases, these are parasites that infect animals, and they order cheap viagra online can only enter the human brain when a person has advair online review exposure to such animals, such as by eating contaminated meat. discount cialis no rx A person with hunched shoulders due to posture issues can sale cialis gently correct their posture at home using stretching and exercise. buy free zyprexa According to the American Lung Association, people will need to atarax without prescription see their doctor at least once a year if they buy viagra no prescription required have asthma and more frequently if they have symptoms. However, generic t-ject 60 this article should not be used as a substitute for buy betnovate side effects work the knowledge and expertise of a licensed healthcare professional. If find discount cialis online a person is considering using CBD, it is advisable that buy cheap levitra side effects liquid they purchase CBD products from a reputable source and discuss taking.

The ubiquitous distribution of bits raises serious issues about children’s access to pornography, a matter we discuss in Chapter 7. As WiFi becomes available in more and more public places, it becomes harder and harder not to be confronted by the prurient interests of others who share those spaces with us. Denver airport, which offers free WiFi (hurray!), adopted a no-offensive-material policy. Who thought that airport officials would wind up in the censorship business?

But now it gets more complicated. American Airlines and other airlines are testing in-the-air WiFi, and the flight attendants’ union wants a similar no-offensive-material policy enforced — filtering the offending bits before they reach the passengers, so the attendants don’t have to adjudicate disputes between bored businessmen on their second martinis and the mothers of teenage boys sitting next to them. There is likely to be some pushback from those paying $9.95 or $12.95 for the service, especially if the filtering is too aggressive (it’s not just porn that would be filtered, apparently — “porn or other offending material,” which might cover a lot of music videos).

What people should be allowed to see is not a simple question for companies in the business of pleasing people, when people have such different views on what they and others should be allowed to see.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008 at 7:42 am and is filed under Censorship and free speech. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.