Either you have freedom of information, or you don't. All you're saying is that you want to write the rules yourself.
edit: What I mean, is it's a slippery slope. If you do the selection by yourself, you'll let out a lot of good stuff. If you trust somebody else to do the selection, that someone will be in time important enough to become either corrupt or a target, or both. Just imagine google excluding sites from its index on some subjective criteria.
You can't solve this kind of problem by limiting access to information. It's simply a bad strategy from the start, and like any design mistake it creates problems farther and farther away, when the issue is only one: a bunch of bits have been made illegal.
I strongly disagree with this idea that I've seen a few times, that somehow the law is irrationally and ridiculously making bits illegal whether in copyright or in pornography. Child pornography is illegal whether its printed on paper or stored as bits. That somehow it shouldn't be a crime just because of the fact that bits can be used to represent anything is a really bad argument.
edit: What I mean, is it's a slippery slope. If you do the selection by yourself, you'll let out a lot of good stuff. If you trust somebody else to do the selection, that someone will be in time important enough to become either corrupt or a target, or both. Just imagine google excluding sites from its index on some subjective criteria.
You can't solve this kind of problem by limiting access to information. It's simply a bad strategy from the start, and like any design mistake it creates problems farther and farther away, when the issue is only one: a bunch of bits have been made illegal.