Slashdot Mirror

Interesting tidbit you apparently missed from that Wikipedia article:

"According to the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, however, Germany is currently ranked 20th in the world in terms of press freedom."

For reference, the US is ranked 48th, well behind pretty much all or Europe (most of which are in the top 20), and trailing places such as Costa Rica, Namibia, Ghana, Uruguay, Nicaragua, etc...

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany [...]
It's scary really. I said only a few days ago that I would never visit or stop over in Germany.

Yes, totally scary. Excerpt from the above link: "According to the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, however, Germany is currently ranked 20th in the world in terms of press freedom."

I had a look at that list

A couple of entries (completly biased and handpicked), just to put this into perspective:

• 1 Iceland
• 18 Canada
• 32 Taiwan
• 44 Israel (Israeli territory)
• 47 Nicaragua
• 48 United States of America

• ...

I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb here and say... Democrat?

I am a member of no political party, and never have been. If you are limited to thinking in terms of political parties, you might perhaps think of me as a bastard child of a Green and a Libertarian, lost in the forest and raised by wolves. I'm a libertarian socialist, a Zenarchist on good days. I'm a vegan and peace activist who owns guns and teaches people unarmed combat skills. I decline to be put in a box.

...because almost every member of America's military believes in the cause...

So is that because almost every member of America's military was woefully ignorant before they joined and their training and indoctrination did not correct that, or because almost every member of America's military was subject to such strong mental conditioning during their training and indoctrination that their ability to thing clearly was clouded?

I remain completely mystified as to how a war that was approved by the VAST majority of not only the government, but the American people (73%, if I remember correctly) can be considered 'illegal'.

Because the U.S. is signatory to treaties outlawing wars of aggression. Among these is the U.N. charter: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal." -- Kofi Annan

Public approval does not make for legality - that's the basis of constitutional government. It's disappointing - nay, frightening - that this is apparently not understood by everyone in the military.

You have every right to walk all over it and call every preemptive strike an 'illegal action' if you so choose. Personally, if you make a motion like you're going to hit me, you better believe I'm going to tie your ass in a knot whether or not you connected with your first punch.

If you're suggesting that there was any evidence that Iraq was somehow going to "hit" us, you've lost touch with reality so much that further discussion is pointless.

(It may change as soon as November 4th if we end up choosing to switch over to socialism.)

I'm sorry, is there a socialist candidate running from a major party? Most of the media attention has been about the one from the party of the center of the right wing, and the one from the right wing of the center. Who is this socialist candidate?

At the moment, America is absolutely the best place on Earth to be

Well, Rome was the best place to be 2,000 years ago. (At least, in the Western world; China under the Han Dynasty was also an amazing culture.) Does that justify the oppression and slavery that existed in the Roman Empire?

But the claim that "America is absolutely the best place on Earth to be" has to rest on some assumptions about "best place". By many measures, the U.S. lags other nations: our literacy rate is 18th in the world, our infant mortality rate is almost twice that of Japan, our life expectancy ranks 29th. On the Human Development Index, we're 12th. On the Press Freedom Index, we're at a shameful 48th place.

I find it the best place to be because it's my home. America is the best nation to me, in the same way that Baltimore is the best city. That doesn't mean that I find the life of a New Yorker worth less than the life of a Baltimorean, or the life of an I

With USA supposedly being "leader of the free world", you'd hope that the USA (48th) would be comparing itself to the top free countries, (Iceland, Norway, Estonia) not China (163), Russia (144) etc.

Here is the "quality of life" index from "The Economist" which is US periodical

"The Economist" isn't a US periodical. It has offices throughout the world but it's registered in London "The Economist Newspaper Limited Registered in England and Wales. No. 236383 | Registered office: 25 St James's Street, London, SW1A 1HG | VAT Reg No: GB 340 436 876".

You might note, near the top of both of those lists reside some countries such as Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Ireland. New Zealand, Canada, Australia and others also rank as very comparable to the US in quality of life, but much higher in freedom of the press.

Freedom of the press is only part of freedom. While I support Reporters Without Borders I value other things as well, such as economic freedom and the right to bare firearms.

So where would someone want to go? I don't know. Ireland? Norway? How about The Netherlands? Austria? They seem appealing these days.

Actually for now I want to go to Brazil. I'm hoping to go there as part of a study abroad program.

Falcon

http://www.rsf.org/

It's just me, or the Olympic rings are depicted here?

By just about any measure, USA is far from 'most free'. For example, look at: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247 where USA ranks 31 below , most of Europe and many others. Sure, it might beat China or Zimbabwe, but you'd hope that USA would try to compare itself with people nearer the top of the list.

If you have issues with the Chinese *government*, you can always choose to not support the olympics by not watching.

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=174

China: The world's biggest prison for journalists and cyber-dissidents

Around 30 journalists and 50 Internet users are currently detained in China. Some of them since the 1980s. The government blocks access to thousands for news websites. It jams the Chinese, Tibetan and Uyghur-language programmes of 10 international radio stations. After focusing on websites and chat forums, the authorities are now concentrating on blogs and video-sharing sites. China's blog services incorporate all the filters that block keywords considered "subversive" by the censors. The law severely punishes "divulging state secrets," "subversion" and "defamation" - charges that are regularly used to silence the most outspoken critics. Although the rules for foreign journalists have been relaxed, it is still impossible for the international media to employ Chinese journalists or to move about freely in Tibet and Xinjiang.

It's sad that we are allowing these Violations of Human Rights in China to continue unabated. America has long known of Chinas abuse of power and its Terrible Record on Human Rights; however, money, more than anything else will allow China to continue to sweep its abuses under the rug.

As one of our biggest up & coming trading partners, with billions of US dollars invested in the country, why would we want to do something as silly as Boycotting the 2008 Summer Olypics? Yes, its unfortunate; however, the status quo will remain, and China will continue to violate Human Rights, while the US and China's other trading partners will continue to turn a blind eye to the abuses.

What about it? According to Worldwide Press Freedom Index as of 2007, (http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025/), Germany ranked 20th, while the US ended up 48th.

More details on the reason for the poor US standing is here.

Americans, you have lost your aspirations.

Want some goals to aspire to?
Perceived corruption http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html USA ranks 20th.
Press freedom http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=824) US ranks 31st.
Privacy http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd%5B347%5D=x-347-559597 , got beaten by Philipines.

The wiretaps and bush's admin outing of a spy are very minor compared to what is known about Sibel Edmund's story. While there is little doubt that W. is illegal on many fronts WRT the wiretaps and the outing, if even a bit of Edmund's story is true, then a large number of congressman and current white house will go go jail. You say it stinks and smells like shit? You think that her story MIGHT have a few holes in it. Did it ever dawn in your pee brain to google for speaking up? Did it dawn on you to check other ex-FBI, ex-NSA, ex-CIA agents? Did if ever dawn on you that not NOT one person is refuting her? Read a little bit before you make a total ass of yourself.

As to the proof of peruvian journalist, well, google is a friend for the intelligent.

You do realize that Iran is a democracy right?

Only if you think a country can be a democracy without freedom of speech or the press. You really think a country where you can be arrested for listening to the wrong news channel can count as a democracy?

http://www.rsf.org/country-43.php3?id_mot=92

Why is this blatant troll modded Insightful?

Just in case the poster really believes what he wrote:

Got that from USA Today did we? Or is it just what you were told in school? According to the Press Freedom Index the only European nation to rank lower than the US is Bulgaria (as far as I can see).

I assume you're talking about the French and German anti-Nazi laws? They're not really thought crimes as you can only get prosecuted if you act on those thoughts, for example by prominently displaying a Swastika. Try walking around Manhattan with a placard saying "I supported the 9/11 hijackers", you will then see how easy it is to be prosecuted for "thought crimes" in your beloved US of A.

The US might not have a law to limit free speech, but in reality it seems the free speech of journalists is more limited than in europe. If you use a law to limit it, or just use patriot acts, or even lawless operations by government agencies, doesnt matter much. How you limit free speech is irrelevant, but don't think there is no limiting going on in the US.

See the index of the Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders for example:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025/

Unfortunately, the Russian reporters being killed isn't a hoax...

Unfortunately the killings of reporters in Russia are all too true. Reporters Without Borders has a report on reporters being killed for 2005. I didn't see one for 2006 or so far in 2007 except where it reports 2006 media workers was the deadliest year for reporters since 1994. Three were killed in Russia, bringing up the count for reporters murdered to "21 since President Vladimir Putin came to power in March 2000".

Unfortunately, the Russian reporters being killed isn't a hoax...

Unfortunately the killings of reporters in Russia are all too true. Reporters Without Borders has a report on reporters being killed for 2005. I didn't see one for 2006 or so far in 2007 except where it reports 2006 media workers was the deadliest year for reporters since 1994. Three were killed in Russia, bringing up the count for reporters murdered to "21 since President Vladimir Putin came to power in March 2000".

Unfortunately, the Russian reporters being killed isn't a hoax...

Unfortunately the killings of reporters in Russia are all too true. Reporters Without Borders has a report on reporters being killed for 2005. I didn't see one for 2006 or so far in 2007 except where it reports 2006 media workers was the deadliest year for reporters since 1994. Three were killed in Russia, bringing up the count for reporters murdered to "21 since President Vladimir Putin came to power in March 2000".

http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Voyage_au_coeur_de_la_censure_GB.pdf

Well, Stallman is using the George W. Bush definition of freedom... where "freedom" means "free obey me and do what I say because I am right!" kind of freedom, not freedom as in the "do whatever you want" kind of freedom.

I am sure, like Dubya, Stallman is very commited to promoting his vision of "freedom", but reasonable people don't see a licence that is full of ideologicaly motivated restrictions as very "free".

I mean, this is a guy who thinks that helping the secret police convert to Linux in a country where you need a government licence to send email, and authorities call the Internet "the great disease of 21st century", is somehow a victory for "Freedom".
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10611

Sorry, but I don't need any of Stallman's brand of "freedom", thanks.

Would you really trust anything that Yahoo puts out? Yahoo has previously ratted on journalists and bloggers to the Chinese Authorities. Worse: They were unapologetic about it, and kept doing it. One Yahoo 'satisfied customer' got ten years jail for criticizing the Government.

So when Yahoo trundles along offering me neat tracking software, umm, no thanks. There's no telling where you might end up reading about it. Now sure, in the U.S. you don't get locked up for criticizing the government, but things do get leaked or given to the wrong people. Anyone who has ever written a comment that was less that P.R.-worthy should consider that. Yahoo has shown itself to be less than trustworthy.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0909/p01s03-woap.htm l
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14884
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/12/business/worldbu siness/12search.html?ex=1185508800&en=a0a01819d3ec c0ca&ei=5070

the other,
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20
is a splash page, me thinks

the other,
http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20
is a splash page, me thinks

According to whom? Would the sources be inside or outside Russia? If they are from inside, I would have serious doubts about that sources reputation

I agree, you are of course right to be sceptic. With Russia having one of the worst rankings in the world for press freedom, I do not have access to any sources I know for sure to be impartial, so it is difficult to know what I read has any slant or not. But from what I have heard in the news in Sweden, and from some quick Googling, it still seems his ratings remain high. I believe this is for two reasons. First is that he controls media, and negative reports are not allowed to be aired. Second is that with the sense of insecurity and humiliation, Russians actually think they need a "strong man" to impose Order and restore national Pride. So the stuff I mentioned above only makes him more popular.

I feel sorry for them. I put far more trust in China's political and economic system than Russia's. That's saying a lot!

I hear you...

I guess the real war here is not *cyber* war, but *information* war, where governments work hard to get the public to their side (sometimes using half-truths as best as they can). This is where I think Russia has an edge: not only are they bigger, but Russian government controls their media more tightly than Estonia, which ranks very high on the press freedom index (see http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639 ). And if the government gets their people angry, some sort of cyber war will happen by default, without government lifting a finger :)

IMO, Russia has overly exaggerated the problem. Although, it is true that Estonia has made some mistakes (for example, at least the government could have informed Russians better -- many thought wrongly at first that the statue was going to be destroyed; it was only later when they found that that they were simply moving the statue from one place to another). Also the Estonian government did not make it very clear that one of the main reasons for moving the statue was to get rid of extremist protests in the middle of the capital, on both sides (e.g. with the statue gone, they don't have a place for gathering).

Russia has acted with a force that is way out of proportion: Russian politicians were suggesting that Estonia was an enemy of the Russian people, asking Estonian government to step down, claiming that Estonian police was beating Russians, etc, none of which were ever proven. This has lead to the situation that now most Russians think of Estonia as a hostile country, even to the point that there are signs in some (although very few) Russian dining areas that say "Estonians not allowed to enter" and the like (pictures circulating in the internet).

As has been said, it doesn't matter what really happens in the world, it only matters what people see on TV.

I'm failing how to see how this is evil.

Let's not kid ourselves. These proposals were aimed at doing the following:

• Getting Google to stop serving China.

I think the misguided idea here is that Google can single-handedly pressure the Chinese government into giving free speech to its citizens. The rationale, I suppose, is that China wants Google so badly that they will shed off oppression just to have it.

If you believe this, you're fooling yourself. There's not a damn thing that Google can do to give people in China the right to free speech. If this proposal passed, the Chinese government would simply block Google from all of China, and by the time the Chinese people do hopefully have free speech someday, they'll all be using Yahoo and MSN instead of Google.

If you don't like the fact that the Chinese people don't have free speech, be mad at the right people, the people who are actually responsible for it: The Chinese government. Stop being so indignant with companies who are doing what they can with the rules they have to play with.

• Force Google to fight things like the DMCA here in the United States

I'm all for Google fighting the DMCA. However, I am not in favor of forcing them to, which is exactly what this proposal would do. They should have the right to choose the battles they wish to fight. If I start my own business and decide that I (and my shareholders) want to fight for the prevention of animal cruelty and dedicate some of my profits towards that goal, that's noble. If an outside group decides that I (and my shareholders) should fight for the prevention of animal cruelty, and then we get raked over the coals because we decide that there are more worthwhile causes to take up, well, I wouldn't care so much.

Is repealing the DMCA a priority of mine? Yes. Do I call people (or companies) "evil" for not making it a priority of theirs? No.

And is anyone thinking that this is a double standard? Even in the United States, Google engages in proactive censorship. I'm sure there has been at least a few cases of national security information the government didn't want to get out being taken down, and we know that copyrighted videos have been pulled. In the case of China, this proposal says that Google is supposed to say, "To hell with it, we're going to do it anyway." In the case of the United States, though, Google is supposed to say, "We'll use legal means to resist."

• Compel Google to break international laws.

As for telling people when Google has to disclose information about them, I actually would be in favor of such a proposal. It sounds like they are trying to keep Google for doing something like getting someone arrested, and when you cross the line from censoring your own operations and ruining other people's lives, it's a different ballgame.

But keep in mind a couple of things. First of all, it's not like China is the only place this can happen. If I used Gmail to send out terrorist threats here in the U.S., our government would compel Google to turn over my personally identifiable information. Is that a bad thing? I don't know, but there's no practical way Google can say, "Okay, this is a harmless joke e-mail, so we'll wipe the user's data. This is Chinese free speech, so we'll wipe the user's data. Whoops, this is a terrorist threat, so we'll keep this around for a while." Even if they could, I'm not so sure that is such a good idea, either. Again, there's a double standard of impractically expecting Google to comply with U.S. law, but thumb its nose at international law.

Also, to my knowledge, Google hasn't turned over personally identifiable information to a government like China. Is there some reason to think that it has? Or that if it was ordered to, that Google wouldn't fight it as vigorously as possible? How do we know that it hasn't already happened, and unlike Yahoo, Google was successful? It seems to me that compared to other soulless bastard corporations, Google would be one of the most likely to actually care about stuff like that.

They forgot BC libel law
http://www.lawyersweekly.ca/index.php?section=arti cle&articleid=371&rssid=4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_libel

Which Wayne Crookes uses to harass the whole Internet to get at his political critics
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.2 0070420.BCWIKIPEDIAS20/TPStory/?query=wayne+crooke s

Details
http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Talk:Wayne_Crookes
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayne_Cr ookes&oldid=85159885
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wayne_Cr ookes&oldid=99714811

Similar cases of dissidents "outed" by pressure from outside the US
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/cyberdissident
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/19/technology/19yah oo.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17180

This about USA in 2006

http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002. Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of "national security" to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his "war on terrorism." The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 US states, refuse to recognise the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism.

and whos company do you keep
Botswana, Croatia, Tonga, Uruguay

now Russia is at 147th but then Russia has never said "we are leaders of the free world" or "we want nations to be free" and other such propaganda.

Its troubling how far USA has fallen in such a small time, people once respected you, now they just laugh at you.
for shame, for shame.

Actually, I did read the Wiki article. And I recently watched a 'Frontline/World' segment on the increasing number of Journalists killed/jailed in varies countries...Russia..Iraq..Turkey. I had a segment on Hrant Dink who was murdered. I believe he was given a six-month 'suspended' sentence before being murdered. I also recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

I didn't make a claim that the Turkish gov't was mass blocking every website. I asked the poster who claimed 'Turkey is not so bad', if based on his recent trip/experience, he was able to access
website about the Armenian genocide. He only reported on AKP/political websites and porn. After re-reading it, I can see it might come across that way, because I prefaced my question with 'Oh Yeah'--but I asked the question twice in the that post. Certainly not worthy of 'flaimbait'. I did state the the 'wrath of the gov't' was being applied and I think that is true, right? Being hauled into the court system because of a free speech comment seems like the wrath of the government to me. Certainly not in line with 'not so bad'. The power of a gov't to arrest, detain, fine, and try can be a powerful deterrent to free speech for many.

Go read the Reporters with Borders 2006 Annual Report on Turkey (link below). You will see that people are still being heavily fined and jailed for various censorship reasons. Previous years reports are there too.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17482

However, unless the Kremlin pursues Chinese-style/Turkish-style blocking of the Internet-Protocol addresses of web sites like 'The Economist', even the Kremlin cannot control the online media.

Now, if a sizeable chunk of the Russian electorate had Internet connectivity and could read English, that would be a problem. Why is everybody assuming every Russian can read English? How many of us can read Russian?

The main point being, in a "nominal" democracy you need to control only 50%+1 of the electorate. Information channels that are available to only a tiny fraction of the population are irrelevant to censorship. In Italy (not as badly censored as Russia... yet) you can find bunches of books denouncing Berlusconi's mafia acquaintances, corruption, and the suspicious sources of his wealth in his own bookstores: that's because few Italians read books (or newspapers for that sake). Try say anything even alluding in that direction on television, and you get fired so fast your ass leaves skid marks through the parking lot. It has not even gotten much better now that Berlusconi is in opposition because he still retains his private power.

France recently banned anyone other that "professional journalists" from reporting violence:

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=21237

Of course, the French press isn't bothering to report continued, endemic riots by "youths":

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070327/ap_on_re_eu/fr ance_subway_clashes_3

Funny how the religion of these French "youths" is always left out of news stories, and now France has banned anyone but the pliable, fully-bought-and-paid-for "professional journalists" from doing any reporting on the activities of these "youths".

Hell, France needs to worry about their own damn intifada, not what's going on in Turkey. Draping the rug over it doesn't make the elephant in the room go away.

A big part of this is that the government over there tightly controls the normal media. For instance, all of the press releases talk about the "much beloved king" and how everybody loves their new government. Reporters without Borders has a better article on this IMHO.

Land of the free. Guaranteed freedom of speech. Press freedom. US 23rd (beats Jamaca Woooohooo!) http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715

In case you don't...
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=14884&v ar_recherche=yahoo+china

If France doesn't value freedom of speech as much as America, then tell my why the Annual Worldwide Press Freedom Index for 2006 rated America behind France in terms of freedom of the press?

America has fallen sharply as Bush has stayed in office, and ranks 53rd equal in the world for freedom of the press. France is currently 35th equal. There appears to be less censorship in France than in America for media reporting. Kinda the opposite of your statement, right? But don't let that get in the way of your blind jingoism.
Source: http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639

Where do you get these silly ideas? Police state? The US is still THE most free nation in the world.

You don't give a shit about losing rights within your own borders because you're too worried about the boogyman to our south.

I can be arrested simply for voicing unpopular views or beliefs

Where do you get these silly ideas? Police state? The US is still THE most free nation in the world.

You don't give a shit about losing rights within your own borders because you're too worried about the boogyman to our south.

I can be arrested simply for voicing unpopular views or beliefs

Governments can't be so repressive if their citizens are fully armed.

Bullshit. Despite your right to bear arms (which is fine, in my book), the USA has been gradually losing many constitutional rights over the last few years. I'll qualify and say "effectively lost" because, while your holy Amendments are still on the books, so many additional court, process, and enforcement activities are effectively preventing their use. They shouldn't, but they are. At least to the extent that the explicitly, unintentionally unqualified freedoms were written. Boiling the frog slowly in hot water so it doesn't jump right out. Or start putting its 2nd Amendment to use until it's too late...

For a simple-minded view of what I'm talking about, read this: http://www.prohibitionists.org/Background/Party_Pl atform/rights/rights.html

You're the best equipped nation to set an example and, forcefully if necessary, stop your government from taking away more liberties in the name of "security". But you don't. And the world looks on.

And don't try writing too much about this. Freedom of the press. Yeah, that used to be your catch phrase. The USA is now ranked 53rd as country of press freedoms. http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639

free press index 2006 - http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639

Despite all that, we're still the most free place on Earth, or else we wouldn't even be allowed to post sensationalist coverage of this story and talk about it and the so-called "Bush regime."

According to Reports Without Borders, the USA has fallen to 53rd (from 16th in 2002) in terms of the freedom of the press.
That is one hell of a long way from most free place on the Earth.

"Each year new countries in less-developed parts of the world move up the Index to positions above some European countries or the United States. This is good news and shows once again that, even though very poor, countries can be very observant of freedom of expression. Meanwhile the steady erosion of press freedom in the United States, France and Japan is extremely alarming,"

The United States (53rd) has fallen nine places since last year, after being in 17th position in the first year of the Index, in 2002.

Myanmar, China, Belarus, Iran, Tunisia, Cuba, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, Vietnam, North Korea, Syria, and Uzbekistan.

Technically we have a dupe here, the article is actually totally based on the Reporters without borders press release we discussed a few days ago. The list of enemies is also identical with the list of censors:

Belarus, Burma, China, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam (Only Burma is called Myanmar.)

According to wikipedia: Owning a satellite dish is banned, and the only TV service comes from one of two state-ran monopoly media corporations. Also, pornography of ANY kind is completely banned (playboy, etc.) which would probably disturb some slashdot readers. A police permit is required in order to hold a public assembly (even when groups are small). Eating or drinking of anything on public transit carries a 5000$ fine. They heavily filter the internet for anything that "may be a threat to public security, national defense, racial and religious harmony and public morality", and in 2005 imprisoned 2 for posting racial slur on the internet; Reporters without Boarders ranks them as 140th out of 168 countries listed (i.e. BAD);

For drug addicts, life in Singapore is hell. First off: drug trafficking of ANY kind usually results in a hanging (according to this, 70% of all executions are drug related). Not to say punishments shouldn't be tough, but these are insane. Here's also a list on what is punishable by Capital Punishment in Singapore.

In addition to having hate speech law, Germany has also been accused of persecution of religious minorities. Other continental European countries (for instance the Netherlands, where I come from) still have archaic crimes like lese majeste, libelous blasphemy, and criminal libel in the books. Apparently this does not prevent most of these countries from ending up higher (shared #1 for the Netherlands) in press freedom rankings than the US, which imprisons journalists for not revealing sources and generally frustrates investigative journalism.

Well, looking up this index http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639 seems that the Brits and the Yanks are behind Germany even in freedom of press (which probably translates in freedom of speech, I think). But the worrying thing is that because your countries are leading the way into more and more restrictions and because you are supposedly the 'leaders and guards' of the western society as it is now, our governments will enforce restrictions similar to the ones you (will) have. Like, as an example, the incredibly stupid new rule where you cannot board a plane in any of the European countries carrying a bottle of water/juice/whatever because of what happened in Heathrow few months ago. But, of course, you are allowed to bring any bottle you buy from a duty free shop. How stupid is this?

some other freedoms (e.g. speech,press) are more limited in countries like Germany

Any source? Just curious, as I am living in Germany and did not really realize.

Also:

Press Freedom Index 2006

CC.

"Name fiftie countries with higher free speech standards than the us."

According to the list at http://www.rsf.org/, the US is #53, so with some effort, I could write down (copy-paste, really) at least 52 of them. According to the ranking, the US shares 53th place with Botswana, Croatia and Tonga.

Copy-paste wasn't so hard. Enjoy. Had to jump a couple so slashdot would allow me to post the list.

N Country Score
1 Finland 0,50
- Iceland 0,50
- Ireland 0,50
- Netherlands 0,50
5 Czech Republic 0,75
6 Estonia 2,00
- Norway 2,00
8 Slovakia 2,50
- Switzerland 2,50
10 Hungary 3,00
- Latvia 3,00
- Portugal 3,00
- Slovenia 3,00
(...)
26 Namibia 6,00
27 Lithuania 6,50
- United Kingdom 6,50
29 Costa Rica 6,67
30 Cyprus 7,50
31 South Korea 7,75
32 Greece 8,00
- Mauritius 8,00
34 Ghana 8,50
35 Australia 9,00
- Bulgaria 9,00
- France 9,00
- Mali 9,00
39 Panama 9,50
40 Italy 9,90
41 El Salvador 10,00
- Spain 10,00
43 Taiwan 10,50
44 South Africa 11,25
45 Cape Verde 11,50
- Macedonia 11,50
- Mozambique 11,50
- Serbia and Montenegro 11,50
49 Chile 11,63
50 Israel 12,00
51 Japan 12,50
52 Dominican Republic 12,75
53 Botswana 13,00
- Croatia 13,00
- Tonga 13,00
- United States of America 13,00

Did they say freedom of speech? That's pretty funny. Given the US' track record in that area, and current rating, that would be a pretty funny argument to make. Not that the UN or some new UN group would do any better. Maybe we should designate some small, relatively free country like Iceland to be in charge. No wait, then dubya would declare that Iceland is part of the axis of evil and for them to reliquish their internets tubes.

The Reporters sans frontièrs think differently about the "absolute view on Freedom of Speech" that you talk about. In the worldwide press freedom index (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=639) there are 52 nations that are more free than the US, along with Tonga, Croatia and Botswana.