Should the Net have easy access to harmful knowledge?

Who decides what is "harmful knowledge"?

Actually, I did read your rant. My point was this. Not all information that YOU consider "harmful" would I consider so. Do I think that suicide is harmful? yup I do, but where does it stop? Are Drugs harmful? You might think so an I may not. GET IT?

"Ah yes, I did point that it could even lead to worst censorship..."

The worse censorship part is the part that I have a problem with, it has been proven time and time again, if you give people an inch they will take a mile. So why give the inch. Net neutrality is a huge subject, and in my humble opinion should NOT be restricted in any way. It is up to the individual to decide what they chose to search for on the internet. In addition to that, how would you enforce such laws? The internet is NOT just U.S. property. I doubt VERY seriously that other countries would agree to the same laws that are imposed in the U.S.

We also have to go back to WHAT constitutes "bodily harm" riding a bike can cause it, walking down the street can cause it. Should these be censored? Again WHO Decides?

"Hmm, and common sense ain't enough?"

Unfortunately no not normally, again you cannot state that MY common sense is the same as yours. Also on the flip side of this statement, why is common sense not enough when it is in regards to what the individual chooses to search for? Why should I be punished for someone else’s lack of common sense?

"Its like you're saying just because a person nearly drown once should that person be afraid of even a cup of water?..."

I guess I don't understand that reference sorry.

"And also you said something about different countries...

Hmm but general values like suicide, drugs abuse are universally not accepted today..."

Not true, Holland has completely different views on drug use than the U.S. does. Just one example.

"So then you disagree with me but how about trying to suggest some other solutions?

After all, lives are still being ruined..."

I did suggest something else. Leave it to the individual to police themselves.

"Its not like I was never concerned about the possibility of over the top censorship."

Understood

"(PS: I never said anything about US property...I suppose its more like the companies with search engines should take action or companies who gave the web space)""

Never stated that you did, or if I inferred it I worded the statement poorly (apologies).

I think that you are missing the point I am trying to make here. The internet being global makes any laws regarding content almost impossible to enforce. In addition to that fact I don't agree that any laws SHOULD be created regarding internet content. It is the responsibility of the individual to police what they view on the internet. Not the purview of a government agency to TELL us what we can see.

"Hmm yes, but people can be so weak during their own crisis...and can do the most stupid things."

I completely agree with this, but it is NOT a reason to limit EVERYONE because someone cannot control themselves.

"Like suicide over a school test result (it does happen in my country...and it also wasn't an important test)

When that happens, they can't really 'police' themselves now can they?

Hmm..."

PARENTS, this is really a simple answer, if parents would be parents these things would not be a problem. You still have not given me any reason to limit the net.

"I remember reading about Japan having a suicide manual been published and the next day a teenager killed himself with a method inside the book. And that's just the next day..."

If someone wants to kill themselves they are going to do it. Does not matter if they read it online, in a book, see it on TV or come up with it all by them selves.

Yes we all should know about HAARP and the Bilderbergers.

Btw I can walk into the bush in most places in my country and find potassium cyanide.