Slashdot Mirror
Australian Court OKs International Net-Defamation Suit
Proud to be unAustralian writes: "Australian IT reports that a landmark court ruling puts Internet publishers around the world on notice that they can be sued under Australia's strict defamation laws -- and effectively in any of the 190 nations where defamation proceedings can be brought." entrippy contributes a link to another article on the case running at The Age.
Reader Diabolus notes that "it is unlikely that this same success would have occurred under American law. This occurred despite the site being hosted in America. It seems that RMS' nightmare 'Harm from the Hague' has come to pass even before that treaty is signed."
I know people always talk about how things like the DMCA make them want to move as far away from the US as possible, but that often doesn't even compare to the situation with laws in Australia. As someone who has recently moved to the US, I can tell you very firmly that I have no interest in ever going back. Just something to think about.
I can see it now. The Taliban will come out suing millions of AOL users for showing their faces in public.
NO TOUCH MONKEY!
I admit that I haven't read the article yet, but would you have to be an Aussie to use this new law?
I see this as a horrible thing for free speech in general, but a profitable issue for Austrailian lawyers. Now, a site in the US, or a tabloid site in the U.K. could have a predatory lawsuite filed against it in Oz, with only the claim that it somehow defames somebody. Troubling.
-- Len
Check out this humorix article.
Looks like ESR might be able to sue the Supreme Court--if he moved Down Under!
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
The following is a quote from that site:
:)
"...elections in Australia are held under a system which does
not allow you to freely express your will because you are required, by law,
to attend a polling booth on election day and have your name marked off
the electoral roll. There is no compulsory voting in Australia as you do not
need to mark the ballot paper. You can put it, unmarked, into the ballot
box. However, the fact that the parliament demands that you be
somewhere on a chosen election day, under threat of fine or jail,
demonstrates that they demand your obedience with menaces. That is
not freedom that is dictatorship."
--http://www.ozscan.net.au/mandate/
1) "...you are required, by law, to attend a polling booth on election day
and have your name marked off the electoral roll."
Getting your name marked off the electoral roll is not only so the AEC can
find out who voted and who didn't so it can fine the latter. It is also:
a) to discourage electors from voting more than once; and
b) to ensure that those who do vote in a particular electorate are
qualified to do so
(Without that precaution you might end up with the sort of stacking that
goes on in the ALP. For example, busloads of the party faithful being
whizzed in from outside a crucial marginal electorate to vote.)
2) I'm not sure quite what you mean when you claim that being "required,
by law, to attend a polling booth on election day" does "not allow you to
freely express your will".
In what way does requiring you to attend a polling booth inhibits you
"freely express[ing] your will"?
After all, the purpose of holding an election (or a referendum, for that
matter) is to allow electors to cast a vote. That is where the "will" of
the electorate is expressed. Compulsory attendance plays no roll in how
that will is expressed.
You are not required to vote for a particualr candidate or to reveal who
you voted for.
What exactly do you mean?
3) "...the fact that the parliament demands that you be somewhere on a
chosen election day, under threat of fine or jail, demonstrates that they
demand your obedience with menaces. That is not freedom that is
dictatorship."
Define "freedom" and "dictatorship".
Kids within a certain age bracket have to attend school or face getting
dragged there willy-nilly by the local truant officer. Why is that
different from grownups being required to attend a polling booth?
If you earn over a certain income threshold you are required to pay income
tax. You might be able to reduce the amount you pay by making use of
various deductions, tax shelters, and so forth, but if the tax office
issues you with an assessment which requires you to pay a tax bill you
have to pay that bill or risk court action--not to mention fines which are
a good deal heftier and more onerous than the $20 fine you get from the
AEC for not voting.
4) "...under threat of fine or jail..."
AFAIK there are no gaol terms for not attending.
You might, of course, get tossed in gaol for contempt of court or being a
repeat offender (ie you keep staying away, they keep fining you, and you
keep not paying), but the same thing would happen if you treated speeding
tickets, parking fines, or a bill from the tax office in a similarly
cavalier fashion.
BTW, the fine for not voting in federal elections is $20 ($50 if you get
taken to court). If the threat of a $20 fine makes Australia a
"dictatorship" you clearly have no idea what a real dictatorship is!
I can't wait to see what life is like when we are simultaneously under the rule of law of 190 vastly different countries. Will it be legal in all 190 countries for me to wear shorts as I go down the street to get milk? Wait, let me ask my global lawyer. Oops, in somethefuckwhereistan it's illegal to drink milk. Drat.
I think we should break as many of these idiotic laws as we can. Hey, French Slashdot readers: NAZI PROPAGANDA! There, now you're all in trouble for reading this post and the French government is coming after Rob.
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Now I have to think back to all of the flaming I've done in my internet history and start sending out "Just Kidding!" emails! Sheesh!
On a serious side note, maybe I and the judge who ruled in favor of this should stop eating all that paint.
-- Dan
...who's to force them to actually go to Australia to defend themselves? How can Australian law be applied to a US based company?
:)
Just another thing to convince me that anarchy is the only way...
Kyle
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
The article states that the slander (or libel) was published first in NJ (USA) and the in Victoria. If a cacheing web search like Google happened to reside in Austrailia, would the existance of a site in its cache constitute publishing? I mean it would be available for anyone to read, and the data would be hosted locally in Australia.
Food for thought.
-- Len
Okay.. with the Dmitry case and the French Nazi memorabilia case and now this case, I think it's time to make a big push for a new international treaty, akin to a geneva convention or time zone agreement. Everyone needs to get together and decide how and if certain laws apply in Internet situations. This is getting just plane out of hand. If we keep going in this direction, the Talliban is going to indict people because they write about premarital sex on their web pages or people will start getting arrested in China because they have written something anti-communist in the past.
I don't understand why the "we're a sovereign nation" crowd, headed by lead blowhard Jesse Helms, isn't up in arms about this. This seems to the be ultimate internationalization of law...
"Yes.. no matter what the culture, folk dancing is stupid." -MST3K
Set a standard for libel of it cannot be true under any possible circumstance and that there are no free speech rights. Make the court filing fee of $1,000,000 USD.
Fight Spammers!
If you are publishing something on the internet which comes under the german law against "Volksverhetzung" you will be arrested on your next trip to germany.
This had already happened, there was a lawsuit.
However, this probably won't even apply to any non-troll slashdot readers 'cause "Volksverhetzung" are insults Nazi-propaganda style.
On the search for the Übermensch.
How can an Austrelian court jule that it can extend it's own jurisdiction to non-citizens, who are not even present on Austrelian soil and may have never set foot on Austrelian soil in their lives? Wouldn't this require the cooperation of the national government of the defendant's country of origin?
I guess I have to do some research or can someone clear this up for me...
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Everyone watch out!
For those of you who are going to flame Justice John Hedigan (Who made this ruling) should think twice! He just might read it and decide to sue you!
On the other hand, sometimes you just have to call a puddinghead a puddinghead. What a wanker.
-- Dan
You think Aussies don't read this? You think word of this discussion won't reach some hungry lawyer in Australian looking to get a high-profile case under his belt? I fully expect someone at Slashdot getting a summons to appear in court in Australia.
I expect the eventual outcome of this will be a national Australian firewall, where if you don't kowtow to hte Australian court, the entire nation is blocked from accessing your site.
After reading both those articles, I must say that the guy "defending" himself against defamation seems like a slimy bugger indeed.
Here's why. He's suing a US-based publication. His lawyer(s) must know that Australian defamation laws are a bit tougher than US laws, so they concoct this idea that since someone in Australia has in fact read it, that the article containing the defaming remarks is published in Australia! Why? So they have more of a chance of a successful defamation case! That's pretty bloody slimy.
What hogwash. I can get on a plane and go to china, buy a chinese magazine, and come home and read it. Doesn't mean that the magazine was published in my home. I maintain that the publishing takes place where the physical web server resides.
God, what a can of worms this is gonna open up.
NO TOUCH MONKEY!
Mr Gutnick is a devious businessman going after a US company in an Austrailian court like that.
Best Slashdot Co
So if I'm reading the article correctly, it also means that if I buy a paper copy of the Washington Post in Washington and take it to Australia then they can sue from Australia because it ended up over there?
I must be missing something. The Barons Journal was published on a US server and viewed in Australia. What's the difference between that and my first statement?
Publications have been crossing borders for years and now they want to change the rules just because it's electronic?
It sounds like any lawyer worth a hill of beans should be able to shoot that one down.
Steve
This dystopian Internet would have regulations on what you can see based on where you view it. It's already hapening in China. Perhaps a digital visa would be needed to access anything from outside your country.
I bring this issue up because clearly countries will never agree on international laws for free speech. This is a big world full of religions and ideologies dividing us into moral groups.
Being a Canadian, I'm not too worried...unless the CRTC forces 30% Canadian content down my throat! (Ever heard a Canadian radio station...they're all awful!)
I hearby move that two new moderation categories be added to the choices for moderation. The categories I would like to see are FUD (-1) and BULLSHIT (also -1).
You're using her as bait, Master!
point. I do not beleive you can force a foreign national to pay, or imprison them, UNLESS they come to your COUNTRY. Much to my shame the USofA
has decided that our laws apply elsewhere, Why should the Aussie's be any different. Freedom was just an illusion fostered by the governments' INABILITY to exercise complete control. Technology is wiping that barrier out rapidly.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Will cross-border prodecution stop at defamation law, or can we (or at least Austrelians) sue the Chinese for copyright violations? Perhaps this is a good thing. Then maybe the RIAA and the BSA would move their base of operations to Austrelia. Good ridence....
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
There definately needs to be some international agreements working out this sort of thing.
Chris Beckenbach
The above post is wholely created and housed in the United States of America (USA). By exporting the above post outside the borders of the USA the exporter agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the author from any suits arising from act of exporting or the contents of the above post, and further agrees to vigorously defend the author from and assume all liability under all suits of law that arise outside the USA from the act of exporting or the contents of the above post.
I'm serious, reading some of the things that the UN intends to do with the world scare me.
A year ago I thought the UN was a good thing, but it's really starting to push the limits of it's charter. An organization started to defeat Nazism and Japanese Expansionism is starting to become a oppresive system it's self.
I don't want to start a flame war, or US vs. The World, but the UN is getting out of hand.
1. Expansion of the World Court's power.
2. Limiting access to firearms
3. Focusing the Anti-Racism Conference to an Anti-US, Anti-Israel Racism Conference.
4. Refusing to take action in Rwanda, yet "king-making" in Somolia.
Those are my big four right now about the UN.
Crocodile Dundee is going come to my home, rip my hands off my keyboard and carry me back to aussie land on his back.
I thought after the Olympics and Survivor we wouldn't have to hear about that giant Texas they call a continent.
oops... am i in trouble now?
Get your Unix fortune now!
OH no the foreigners are at it again -- how dare they sue a US comapny for maliciously printing falsehoods about a prominant australian business man ??????
.....
This is no different to the jursidictions being claimed by US courts in many civil cases under DMCA, Trade Secrets
Freedom of speech should not include knowingly printing false and scandalous (presented as fact) stories for commercial gain.
I make no judgment on the facts of the case but this is what is being alleged and they should answer for it.
Publishers have a lot of power with that power should come some responsibility - if tomorrow morning you woke up to a news story claiming falsely that (for example) you are a child molester- wouldn't you want to sue somebody ???
Don't worry, I'd expect the punishment would only be a booting. Mad Max style.
Do You Have Stairs In Your House?
Ok, so how do we block everyone in Australia from accessing our websites? The only thing I can think of is to terminate their net access completely. But they could come in through some other country. So we'd have to block all other countries. Turning the international internet into a national network. Any country accessing "our" network would have to agree that any legal actions must be in U.S. courts under U.S. law at the least, perhaps even having to pay a hefty access fee.
There are only two other (semi-reasonable without resorting to violence) options I see: a world government or UN court type oversight, or a treaty that prevents this crap.
The suit is against a corporation. Presumably, the corporation does business in Australia; hence, it has assets there, which can be seized to enforce a verdict.
At the moment, corporations are pretty much the only ones at risk, for that very reason. (Although an indvidual may eventually find their possibilities for international travel somewhat limited.) That's the scary part of the Hague treaty. If it's passed, the foreign verdict CAN be enforced in your home country.
Justice John Hedigan is a pederast. He is also well known for his having sex parties involving goats. He is quite flexible and can suck his own dick. He prefers little boys to men or women.
So...sue me.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
The natural recourse is to cease all business in Australia and ignore the law suit. Problem is, as we see with the US attitude with countries like China, profit takes precidence over ethics. It's just profitable to limit your speech in places with Draconian laws.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Rules for entering the Australian legal profession:
#1: No Pooftahs ...
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
The old addage - 'Common sense isn't very common' is ringing very true right now.
Could someone just drop a big fricking rock on us all and put us all out of our collective missery?
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
It seems to me that Justice John Hedigan has just opened a can of worms that even he does not understand. Given that Australians can sue people in the US for defamation now, I guess this would mean that people in the US can sue people in Australia for voilating our 1st amendment rights.
.sig censored by Australian laws.
Last I checked, I am still allowed my opinion here in the US, and if I say that in my opinion John Hedigan is a clueless moron, and he tries to prevent me from expressing my opinion, then he is violating *MY* rights.
It would be a fun thing to be a lawyer and just for kicks, start a class action lawsuit against the Justice and the entire Justice System of Australia for violating our right to free speech. Wouldn't all American residents be qualified to join this lawsuit?
--
This
It's not like we do much business with them anyway. Besides, they're all French anyway. Wait, that's those sneaky Canadians. The Aussies are all descended from criminals, and us True Amurrken types have Zero Tolerance for criminals! Especially ones who pirate ships.
Best Slashdot Co
I have two things to state based upon my first and gut reaction to the article.
1.) IMHO international law in such a case is ludicris! Imagine all the things that don't culturally click. Moral differences are strongly evident in the cultural histories. We as Americans used to strongly believe that white males are superior moral agents and all other iterations of our species are inferior casted patients who at best could only benefit from rights alike those that we (as the upstanding white males) alotted for ourselves. If we don't scoff away the silly practice of permitting such law that at worst could make libel on the internet illegal, we could have a sticky situation on our hands. Australia is a lesser powerful country, they can't enforce such laws, but imagine if China, a powerful country that outright censors the internet adopts such practices... Well that's all I have to say about that!
2.) All libertarians can agree on what John Stuart Mill would say to such legal practices. This is a blatant case of "sticks and stones" since there is never any REAL harm that is done by the practice of defamation on the internet. Unless we can direcly correlate the practice of libel on the internet with DIRECT and DISTINCT harm, we have no moral grounds for passing on such censorship.
I better stop before I go off the wall and make myself flamebait BUT! I must last add that some sort of protest, ban, etc. ought be practiced to prevent such measures of censorship from happening.
.: 2+2 = PI SQRT(1+N)
I do. But that doesn't make it any less wrong when somebody else does it.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
Yeah, and the US was founded on some lofty ideals of freedom (which I happen to believe in with all my heart and soul). Look what's happening now. Both political parties (especially the so-called Democrats) are taking away our rights as fast as they can possibly grab them. We're filing criminal charges with a possible 25-year prison term on a foreign national who wrote a program (legal in his country where he wrote it) that has perfectly legal uses. Morons have a nasty tendency to lose sight of the past (and reality for that matter...look at "gun control").
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
This post has been censored thanks to the Australian defamation law.
As a German, I'd like to comment on this. First, I know about the arrest you mentioned, and I think it was wrong. There are laws in Germany that regulate if and when foreign citizens can be arrested in Germany. It is for example possible for you to be arrested in Germany when you've been involved in planning a military attack against Germany, which I think sounds reasonable, as such action threatens Germany's "national security". I suppose the US have similar laws. I don't know if those "foreigner arrest laws" can also be applied to publishers of nazi propaganda. From my reading of the law, it should not be possible, but IANAL.
But either way, there is a difference. Not only is racism definitely worse than calling someone a "devious businessman", most foreign publishers of nazi propanga also specifically leave Germany in order to publish in more free countries. They still publish German texts, and generally target a German audience. They know that if they did publish in Germany, they'd be considered criminals. One might even say that such propaganda threatens the national security of Germany (for example if it encourages terrorist activities against politicians or foreigners living in Germany).
The article discussed in this Australian lawcase, on the other hand, was not targeted specifically to an Australian audience. It was also not published in the US in order to circumvent Australia's laws. And probably the publishers didn't even know it would be a criminal offense to publish the material in Australia. It certainly did in no way threaten Australia's national security.
Don't get me wrong, I do not think the German court's judgement was a wise decision. You should fight fascism, but doing so with methods that aren't democratic is the wrong way. But this Australian judgement, IMHO, takes things a huge step further and is a much greater danger to free publishing on the internet.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
In a word it can't. If you say use the internet to rob a bank in Australia they might get the US government to put you on a plane so they can try you. (Hell extradition happens all the time) However the US government has a lot of discression on how they do that.
But if we are talking about a civil suit there is not much they can do unless you have some assets in Australia.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
I think what this is trying to say, is, that if you are going to slam someone in an article don't publish it in Australia. They seem to claim that the article did appear in Australian based media. Thus the original publishing in New Jersey is moot. Question is... does that mean the just because someone in Australia opens the page on a US based server, that it is now "published" in Australia. I would doubt that.
The1Genius - Littera Scripta Manet
If Skylarov could sue members of any jury that convicts him for libel, after all, what he's done isn't illegal... in Australia or where the action was committed.
I wonder how far we could take the whole "all of our laws transends national boundaries" thing before the powers that be realise they've fucked things up. This isn't even a 'net thing: Jesse Helmes has been trying to get non-American's assets siezed as punishment for doing business with Cuba for years. The fascist republicunt is retiring, but has sadly waited until after the damage has been done.
Racists should be sent back to where they came from
I vote we cut ALL communication lines to Australia until the population publicy hangs the morons responsible. If they think that one of their laws can revoke my rights won by several generations bloodshed, they are wrong.
F*ck Australia! We should have let the Jap's have it in WWII.
Spell check? Why bother. That is what grammer/spelling Nazi freaks who waiste band width posting "spell right" are for.
It's very easy to say "well, I can sue you in my country."
It's quite another to enforce it and deal with all the implications of said enforcement.
Though I am concerned about countries trying to pass draconian laws that affect people in other countries, though I am concerned about the DMCA-type legislation considered in other countries, enforcement is still the sticking point.
Sometimes, I visualize the future where the internet leads to the governments of the world arguing over whose laws apply where, who should turn whom over to whom, and so forth. This person violated this law, but we don't recognize your law, but this guy violated OUR law, so . . .
Maybe while they argue we can get something productive done . . .
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
The ability of one nation to impose its laws on non citizens living outside its borders is directly proportional to its ability to project force. In the case of Noriega, it was the United States ability to project our military force to Panama that allowed the forced extradition of Noriega to an American court of law. I am not sure what kind of force the Australian government is prepared to use to impose its laws, but I don't see Aussi commandos raiding the geek compound anytime soon ;-D
For an Australian Court to rule that a message posted upon a website operated in the United States, by an American company, and directed at readers almost exclusively in the U.S., is, merely because it can be read by someone in Australia, now subject to the jurisdiction of Australian Courts, the start of a dangerous precedent.
If someone imports a copy from the U.S. of the Wall Street Journal into Australia, does that make the publisher liable in Australia for alleged libel on a story in the newspaper?
Perhaps there are assets of Dow Jones & Company somewhere in Australia which the plaintiff in this particular case can attach, but, if not, they would have to come to someplace - most likely the U.S. - and then they'd have to convince an American Court (or whatever country they think they can find assets to attach) to accept the judgement as valid, not necessarily all that easy if the defendant fights it claiming that the courts in Australia have overstepped their jurisdiction.
The issue is even stronger if it was someone who had no presence outside the U.S., who decided not to try and defend what to them was a ridiculous lawsuit and the other party were trying to enforce a default judgement where the website operator didn't show up. The party suing might even be held liable for damages if the suit is considered frivolous or unreasonable.
It is this sort of relatively stupid attempt at an overly Draconian long-arm statute law that will eventually destroy respect for the judiciary and could conceivably backfire.
If the Australian Courts can impose in personam jurisdiction upon someone outside of the country merely because they put something up on a website outside of the country but can be read in their country, then those who publish elsewhere could do the same thing to impose in personam jurisdiction upon someone outside of the country who attempts to sue or respond to their content.
The website publisher could include language in their right to use clause of their website, perhaps with a click-thru agreement in order to get to it, possibly even via a law similar to UCITA and using that to require someone who has a complaint to use arbitration in a specific city of their choosing, or to sue them only in a specific court, perhaps tossing it back on them and requiring anyone using the site to submit to in personam jurisdiction in their area and agreeing to accept service by mail, and requiring they not sue the website operator in any other place or agreeing to automatic liquidated damages of three times the amount of the judgement and agreeing to allow the website operator to submit the automatic judgement to the local court in the city where the publisher operates and allow it to be collected anywhere in the world without trial, and, waiving any defenses and any other requirements which might be available elsewhere.
Imposing 'long arm' jurisdiction over the Internet for communications or use where the other party has no physical presence is conceivably a two-edged sword and it cuts both ways.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Some how I doubt that this will create any new treaties or other international agreements. It will some make lawyers richer, just like every other bone-headed lawsuit does. What it will do is create a new web annoyance, the User license for reading this information. It will read somewhat like a software license, in that it will say: - by reading this you hold us harmless for everything under the sun, including killing small mammals, cutting down rainforests, slander, libel, or trashing your computer through the use of Microsoft products. - if you still want to do something silly like sue us after you read this license, you must do so under the laws of in courts located at , and further, even if you win, you agree by reading this to pay my legal expenses. And of course someone will find a way to make lawyers richer and waste the time of everyone involved, because devious business people have nothing better to do.
Free will is as much not being forced to be somewhere as it is allowing someone to be somewhere.
Simple: If I am somewhere at one time I am not elsewhere.
Detail: The purpose of a particular place to be cannot be allowed to be considered in the support of a law.
Consequences: Highways are for travel therefore there is nothing wrong with requiring people to use said highways. Sunday is for your salvation therefore you should be required to attend.
People have forgotten the value of zero, nothing, nada, zip, zilch, silence, boycott, apathy.
Top 8 worst places to live:
1) Afghanistan
2) Left over ruins of the cold war
3) China
4) Australia
5) The EU (socialist bastards)
6) UK
7) Canada (socialist wanna bes)
8) US
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Amen to that, especially the gun control comment.
Lets just say we put in a new tag like this:
<meta noread=".au,In other words, we need an /etc/hosts.deny for HTML on a per-file basis instead of .htaccess, independent of the server software. Of course, such a mechanism could be defeated by removing the host's reverse DNS entry, but the intent of the publisher regarding locale of publication could be easily discerned.
Then after the Australian government attacks the web again, the major sites can just shut them off for a few days to convey the world's collective displeasure.
I hear that the Aussies have a tremendous society, but their internet legislation over the past few years has left something to be desired.
Courts all over the world have exhibited signs of being on crack when it comes to juristiction in Internet cases. There needs to be a uniform way of determining juristiction in these cases but I'm sure that whatever they come up with with be viewed as wrong and stupid by those of us in the know on the net. Your average government official trying to make laws with reguards to net usage is rather like me trying to represent someone in a legal case, with my only experience being dozens of episodes of "Ally MacBeal." All lawyers have unisex bathrooms and take moments in court, right?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Maybe Barron's will be sentenced to a booting!
So when a country's judges make stupid decisions like this, everyone else to just totally block all access to their site from any of that country's IP addresses. I.E. Prevent that entire country from accessing any other's country's content.
Yes, I know that the users in that country could use a special server in another country to get access to the material, but you would not be 'publishing' in that country and should be able to fight this better.
Yahoo should have done this with France...
Eventually the judges may reconsider their rulings...
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
Well no more Australian Beer for me until these 'Roo Shooters keep their laws within their borders. :P
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I think the judge got it wrong. He says that by publishing something on the web you are publishing it in every country in the world. I think that is clearly incorrect. You have published the files on your server, which most definitely resides in your own country and nowhere else. The viewers from all over the world have to voluntarily make an "electronic journey" to your country to view the content. Let me draw an analogy: Imagine I'm sitting in the USA the middle of the desert right on the US/Mexico border. I'm sitting in a chair, facing away from the Mexican border, reading a newspaper. Now, a Mexican walks up behind me, still in Mexico, and looks over my shoulder. Did the publisher publish the newspaper in Mexico ? No ! The reader viewed the content across an international border. Theoretically you could do the same thing from a distance if the viewer was using a telescope or binoculars. So why should it be different if the viewer is using electrons instead of photons for the transmission medium ?
Hi!
I find it rather interesting that this little article - which theoretically touches all our lives - has had practically no response to it.
Are people writing Australias gouverment off? I know that here in Germany, whenever we hear Yet Another Freedom Horror from the USA, we simply smile, shrug, and say "Crazy Americans. I'm glad I don't live there".
Meaning we don't take it seriously.
Perhaps the same thing is happening to the Australian gouverment?
Ciao,
Klaus
Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
Just curious, but what laws govern the International Space Station?
Karma: Good. I'm hoping in the same way as pizza is 'good'...
This appears to be flawed legislation to me. Not that I agree with the basis of the law to begin with, but shouldn't the Australian Parliament target the Australian ISP? It would seem to me that they 'imported' the content.
The funny thing is, doing this would erect a huge virtual content-firewall around the country. I understand that treaties exist mandating reciprocal action (for all those posting "How can they do this?": its a joint treaty that basically says, "You give us all your citizens that face civil action in our country and we will give you ours.."), but those are in place for big-hitter type offenders and clear cases of injustice. If I write a factual, but critical article about Australia, does that get targetted? What this shows is just how silly those treaties are sometimes in practice.
The bottom line in my opinion is what is the AUS gov't saying about its citizens? Is it telling the world that they are not educated enough to read the content and critically think about it? That they need protection from this? If indeed the gov't believes that, then just shut the internet off down there, given the fact-to-opinion ratio of the internet as a whole.
One thought that came to mind was it seems to also offer this statement: "Downloading porn until your hard drive smokes - fine, but none of that stuff saying we aren't the bestest country on the planet!"
Where are you? I'm in the Peoples' Socialist Democratic Republik of Maryland (thanks to John Jasen), and we can't buy (or are at least seriously limited) kevlar body armor (bullet proof vest). I'm pretty sure we can't buy armor piercing ammo (not so sure about this, and probably depends on your definition). I think I can still buy a hand gun (though I have to wait 2 weeks for a background check that should be instant), though Glendenning is trying to outlaw that too. I can't carry (which is guaranteed in the second amendment). If you don't think they can violate the constitution, then I'm sorry to say that I think you are hopelessly naive.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
The judge who made this ruling fornicates with sheep and is addictged to drugs.
Go ahead, sue me.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Nor for that matter does any website not published FROM australia. When Joe Kangaroo gets his info from the DJ website, he takes a trip to america, picks up the site, and goes back. By the logic used in this case, somebody vacationing in the US from down under, could buy a paper in the US, take it home, read it, and sue under libel.
In actuality the guy should sue himself, for importing libellous materials.
What this means is that by publishing my web page, I'm opening myself to prosecution in any country with an internet connection. Right now, I can't see anything too objectionable on my site, but what if I post a section from the Bible that some Islamic fundamentalist government has outlawed? What if I post the Declaration of Independance and China outlaws that? What if I print something not "nice" and Lichetenstein decides to pass a no "not nice" libel policy?
A decision like this is more than overbroad, it's overboard. In a questionable attempt to make enforce Australian libel standards, this decision would quell Constitutionally-protected speech in America because even though it's protected within our borders, you'd be prosecuted on your first step onto foreign land. This decision also creates an absurd legal fiction that a person is everywhere at once. Posting something to a server in Boondocks, IA from Bumblefart, MN shouldn't subject you to Austrialian, Etheopian, or even Californian jurisdiction. It's bad law.
Why would you speak (or publish on the internet) if you'd get arrested when you traveled abroad? (The similarities to the Skylarov case are very much in mind here.)
I don't mind too much if corporations want to lock their customers into "their" internet, and I don't care if the government attempt to regulate because they'll fail for a variety of reasons. I'm much more concerned about the rights issues. While decisions like this won't kill the internet(no, there's no immenient demise of the internet), but it will surely make it a less interesting place. -sk
That's a load of dingo's kidneys, cobber.
The analogy you give is not valid. This is not a case of an American letting an Australian glance at "his" copy of a newspaper, or website, or whatever. This is a case of an American publication choosing a distributor that happens to distribute internationally - knowing that the distributor distributes internationally, and without making any efforts, effective or even good faith, to have the distribution of the newspaper limited.
Had the DJ IP blocked most of the world except for the US, then the only people outside of the US who'd have been able to read their content would have been those relying on proxies within the US - a more legitimate approximation to your analogy - and those who bought US Internet connections - approximately going to the US and buying your own copy. DJ didn't do this, so the claim that they published internationally is 100% valid.
That doesn't make it any less of a can of worms, but let's keep the analogies reasonable shall we?
Racists should be sent back to where they came from
Except in the case of Manuel Noriega, he was running the country that surrounded the single most important piece of geography to U.S. strategic interests - the Canal. So, when you run drugs AND control the canal, yeah, then you're gonna get stepped on. We've been doing that in this hemisphere for about a hundred and fifty years, so it's not like it was a surprise.
There is a national interest in being careful with the Internet, when you consider the fact that the Internet, by it's nature, makes the entire concept of a 'nation' a little less secure. So projecting your laws outwards is a means of protecting your national idendity in the face of external pressures you have NO OTHER WAY to resist.
So the question we're really asking here may have more to do with the decision to resist outside influences than with extraterritorial laws. I think that folks on the 'Net are more likely to say 'let the external influences be!' Problem is, most people - yes MOST PEOPLE - don't agree with that. And if there's no other way to resist an outside influence than assert extraterritoriality, then extraterritoriality will be asserted, and supported by the majority, even in a democracy.
IMHO.
...Doing something about it?
The answer is simple. Since you can't change the laws, you should prove them wrong.
Put together a new party. You'll probably need to be nominated to find a few other friends with your view.
Call it the "Non-Voters" party. Make your mandate, in the unlikely event you are elected, to immediately step down from government and allow whoever was the runner-up to take your seat.
On election day you'll be able to see how many apathetic votes there are. If you have a high-enough number then you have a case to get the law repealed.
Just an idea. A pretty low-effort one too. Shouldn't take you more than a few minutes to show your nomination forms and be added to the ballot.
>Should I be fined for not showing up?
In my country (Canada) many non-violent, non-destructive torts can be repealed if you can claim the defence of necessity. I think explaining to the judge that you were too tired to safely make it to the polling booth would be an acceptable defence of necessity. The risk of losing your primary income / education could also be a defence of necessity (with secondary implications for the company forcing you to work, or the school forcing you to be at school).
Legal disclaimer: IANAL, so take all that with a grain of salt.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
Is a smelly Aussie buggerer, and drinks Foster's brand pisswater beer. And Paul Hogan, kangaroos, and dingos can all eat me, too.
I think it's time to make a big push for a new international treaty, akin to a geneva convention
... even though the rules are draconian, at least then we know what they are. And thus we all fall right into their trap, giving up our rights for a little dubious certaintly and playing right into their hands. What is worse, from the way the US Constitution is written it is entirely possible that international agreements, once ratified by congress, may in fact supercede constitutional protections (this is a highly debated point, but alas not the cut-and-dried your rights are protected from such things most of us like to believe ... and reading the constitution doesn't shed much light on the issue, so in the end the interpretations of our increasingly unreliable Supreme Court will likely be all that stands between us and the Abyss).
Our fundamental rights to freedom of expression, speech, freedom from search and seizure, etc. are under concerted attack from numerous directions at the state, federal, and international level. At the international level this is happening on at least two fronts, with multinational treaty groups/trade regions (think European Union and NAFTA) and global treaties (think WTO and WIPO). It is quite likely that a part of the strategy to get everyone to knuckle under the kind of draconian world-wide laws those whom WIPO and the WTO represent desire (i.e. the corporations of Earth) is to deliberately make the current situation so untenable that we will demand something, anything, to replace the current situation.
How better to achieve that than to have every Tom, Dick, and Harry (e.g. California, France, and Australia) claim world-wide jurusdiction, such that the world's lowest common denominator (e.g. the Taliban) comes to impact each of our lives? Then a worldwide, standardized DMCA might look inviting
Farfetched? A couple of years ago, before the DeCSS and Dmitry cases I might have thought so. But in todays climate I not only find it a reasonably possible scenerio, but a likely one.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
National soverignty is way bigger than you, Sklyarov, and this defamation suit.
Not if I'm a solopsist.
my position is that bad laws happen.
Right. So did Mcarthyism, Japanese detention camps, and surveillance of the Black Panthers, all by federal mandate.
Making laws universal makes them unescapable
Nothing is inescapable.
Once we give up our right to decide what is and isn't legal on our soil
I, for one, have never enjoyed this right. Have you?
you might as well Give Up
There is slightly more dignity in resisting until the party puts a starving caged rat on your face.
Sorry to be such a bitch, but i just couldn't let go. I guess I need a job or something.
I completely disagree. Route to the server is moot. DJ simply says I have a document here on this (cluster) server. If you wish, you -with your own means- may initiate a connection to the server, located in the US, and take that document and transfer it to your PC in AUS. The individual reading it and their ISP facilitated that transfer, not DJ. If I am selling Foo and Foo is illegal in AUS, yet someone comes up to me and buys Foo while mentioning that they are immediately leaving for AUS, is that my problem? Heck no, adn neither is this DJ's. Its a PULL model, not PUSH. DJ didn't lift a finger to send that document to AUS until an _Australian_ connected to a US server and asked for it.
As far as your good faith efforts - what do you propose, requiring every individual on the planet to comply with every law under every TLD allowed into their webserver? The most dangerous part is that you immediately hold everyone to be _simultaneously_ governed by multiple nations. Totally unworkable without major changes in terms of heirarchy (can you imagine that).
One could actually argue that the document wasn't a document until the _user_ opened it on his PC and changed it from incomprehensible electrons to a human-readable language. As far as I can tell, the person who is ultimately culpable is the end user. When did we get away from that type of thinking anyway?
At the end of the day, Dow Jones would have known that the article would end up in Australia. They probably even have Australian subscribers. If they were serious that it was only a US publication, they would not have any Australian customers.
I doubt very much if an Australian wanted to buy a Dow Jones publication that their sales department would say "sorry - we only publish to the USA".
I know I am probably about the only one left who drinks it though - sorry Bondy.
:(
Seriously though, I like VB - because I am cheap. I just wish you could buy it here in Boston
How is NAFTA attacking your freedoms?
I interested, what would your top 8 (or even 3) best places to live look like? Japan? SE Asia? Central Africa?
More or less, yes. There's an opinion piece in The Australian which mentions that they'll probably have to apply to a US court to have the damages awarded. The US court is unlikely to award damages unless it meets the US criteria for defamation.
Not that this doesn't fill me with a certain sense of irony. The US courts have been quite happy to extend their jurisdiction in civil cases to whereever it pleases them in the past. So one could say that the precedent has already been set.
One of the things that was decided (either in this case or previously) is that if you can read it in Victoria, Australia then it is considered to be published there. With the deformation laws in that state it is up to the defendant to prove the truth of their assertion - if they can't they lose. Still, it costs enormous amounts of money to take someone to court over defamation in Australia, so that cuts down on the number of cases.
Also, don't try to come here by boat, the government will sic the troops on you and tow you out to sea :(
The despised Dr. Laurence Godfrey has already sued a Canadian for a Usenet posting. Here is a Wired article June 1998 discussing the case... and Godfrey won. The Canadian gentleman then replied to the court judgement saying he didn't give a toss about British law and they could go... well I'll let you use Google to find the exact language. The sad thing is I consider myself a top tech talent and am considering working abroad... and the two places I would like to visit don't seem to be suitable: the USA (with DMCA and anti-crypto) and Australia (too many Internet problems to list) are so backwards they make our problems (RIP, etc) seem trivial. If only Canada wasn't so cold...
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
kinda funny how when a US law affects someone from a foreign country, nothing much happens; yet the lamericans get all up in arms when they discover a foreign law affects one of them.
I'll spell it out
G
E
T
A
C
L
U
E
Matt
Australia has a heavy economic dependence on tourism. But this little earner could be in a bit of jeopardy.
People now have had reason to worry that, on visiting Australia, they might be arrested at the customs gate because of something they said on the internet years ago.
I must say that as an Australian, I'm glad to be out of that country and now living in New Zealand (which is not even a signatory nation to the Hague Treaty).
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Years ago I learned that, if the USA had've had Australia's strict defamation laws, then the Watergate scandal would never have broken.
The Australian laws are so strict that it's illegal to say something even if it's true!
Australia is literally a former prison colony, and much of the convict streak still persists - the underlying notion that everyone is a criminal.
The lack of constitutional gun rights means that Australia's government doesn't have to be as subtle as the USA's in oppressing the mass population.
Hell, it's even illegal to web-cast in Australia without a license! I'm so glad I left!
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
This ruling has had a fair bit mainstream press attention, and most of it is well aware of the potential damage the decision could do. Anyway, don't panic quite yet. There's still a way to go before we really have to worry about this piece of judicial stupidity.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
. . . and I managed to point out that this case had been mentioned on /. before here
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Under NAFTA, foreign corporations may sue local democratic governments based on laws that may violate the rights of the corporations under the treaty. Our right to a representative government is thus violated in favor of corporate rights to make a profit.
there was some English law (case law) last century, about where contractual formation took place when telegraph communications were involved.
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
I'm an Austrlian and I also believe that the ruling is bad. But then, its hardly the first *bad* court decision in Australia or the US.
- A 16 year old norwegian kid vs the MPAA..
- The FBI hacking computers in Russia..
- Etoy vs etoys..
- Civil Lawsuit in a district law court against the entire country of Iran. Proceeds taken from frozen assets.
As usual, the typically American slashdot crowd slams all of Australia and its political system
based on the decision of one judge(which can still be overturned on appeal) and conveniently fails to draw comparisons to the actions of its own government.
Various levels of the US justice system routinely step over the mark when handling foreign nations, as it suits.
Australia has its good points and bad points, as does the US. You laugh at our compulsory voting system... we are amazed and shocked that you continue to stand behind your Bill of Rights on gun ownership, when your kids are dying in the hundreds.
To those who put Australia in the same basket as China or Afghanistan, why don't you travel to all three and better educate yourselves (ignorant fucks!!)
'sapientia potestas est'
Fuck the Australians. They're nothing but decendents of scum shipped out of the UK and Eastern Europe. The "Land of the Lucky" my ass. I live in here in Indonesia and see Australians stomping around here acting like the ignorant pricks they are every day. So fuck'em. Sue me.
The world doesn't need Germans to tell it anything about law, racism, freedom, humanity......sorry guys, you blew it big time and you'll never make up for it.
If you are living in another Common law jurisdiction (Canada, UK, etc.) then getting the judgement enforced is possible but not exactly easy. The exception is the US where the courts routinely refuse enforcement of foreign libel judgements, particularly those originating in the UK.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Examples?
Dimitry doesn't count: his arrest was on US soil. Traveling to a country places you under the jurisdiction of that country: can a Dutch citizen (legally) smoke weed in Iowa?
Here in Singapore we have Nixnation....and it rocks!
http://www.nixnation.org
Really great, but it's NOT plain HTML, and it doesn't give the publishing industry the suggestion from a standards body to cut off any region that threatens them.
No, my idea is never going to see the light of day, but perhaps the way to fight internet censorship is not to lobby and demonstrate, but to provide equal power of censorship to the producer and the consumer.
It's all about checks and balances.
As a member of the Australian Labor Party, I got the following passed by ACT Labor and Australian Young Labor this year:
Bill of Digital Rights and Responsibilities
This branch recognises that global electronic communications have created a defacto standard for free speech online. ACT Labor further recognises that it is not a coincidence that the most dynamic and enduring societies and economies are those that foster freedom of expression.
Recent and proposed legislation relating to digital communications has acted to erode legal certainties and rights. This trend should be decisively reversed.
This branch calls upon the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, once in Government, to commence public debate on a Bill of Digital Rights and Responsibilities, to be legislated using the Commonwealth's electronic communications powers under the Constitution.
Such a Bill would include:
Explanatory points:
The relevant parts of the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act are here
The ideas for reforming defamation law come from "The Law Report" on Radio National, see here
The section concerning criminal prosecution addresses many problems, present and potential. An example of how bad things can get is a bill before the SA parliament. See here
The "fair use" of digital intellectual property could become a big problem in the future. Presently it is a crime to provide the means by which someone may decrypt encrypted digital data such as a DVD, without the authority of the publishers. This has the effect of restricting "fair use" of copyrighted works. Yet this does not prevent piracy.
The right to use workplace technology for non-work purposes is important. Catch-all provisions can be placed in employment agreements that allow employees to be dismissed for trivial reasons or for their politics. There is also the possibility that by making non-work communications unauthorised, employees are criminally liable for "misusing" computers in the workplace.
here and here.
from indymedia.org
from
the NAFTA index:
Never never never smoke crack before geometry class!
"Mr Gutnick can sue the world's largest financial publisher, US giant Dow Jones, in his home town, Melbourne, over an article published in the business journal Barrons Online in October last year."
=> A Guy was defamed in the US, and took a defamatyion suit in Australia against the local branch of the publisher...
What is the problem with that ?
If it's the same company, the guy CAN attack them if he wants.
It's not as if he wrote something against the publisher and and got busted in another country ! The other way around in fact..
A private can now retaliate againsnt International Company, involving the local branch.
Wich means, I can Sue Microsoft under French Law using the "Protection des vices caches" Law (wich says you cannot sell something with is defective... Anyone see implications there ? 8)
So, WTF ?
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
Is there someone replying here who can actully spell properly?
The anti-Australia post here have been laughable, "Australia will sue Slashdot next!!" and posts about how Australians at an election are formed into mass groups and the people who cannot vote are executed on the spot. To those people: Get a clue. You don't know what happens here, you don't know our laws, you don't know how it is like to life here, so stop pretending that whatever country you live in is paridise and does not have any flaws, you're the type of people who believe those chain emails that say that Bill Gates will give $1 to some charity if you pass it on. And what about the person going on about how they lived in Australia before, and have moved to another country, and will "NEVER go back", because our laws are so constraining. What a joke. Unless you're a full-time criminal you wouldn't have much of an idea, and as for you having to flee Australia because of the laws there, that's a joke.
"Proud to be Australian"
Most of the world defines a dictatorship as a place where one person (a dictator) gets full control over a country without the checks and balances of that other governments have.
Um ... the UK is in the EU.
>Well, they may own Christmas Island, but they don't own my homestead in the USA. If they come to my front door in a feeble attempt to assert jurisdiction over me, I'll send 'em home with a mouthful of 00 buckshot, firmly delivered.
Yes, thats typical of an american. thinking that shooting someone with a big gun is cool, even though your just proving you have a small dick. Perhaps you should start dropping smart bombs on us?
>...which sucks a 48% income tax and a 10% General Sales Tax out of them
Again, another example of american stupidity. Assuming something without any knowledge of it at all. you only pay the 48% income tax if you dont provide your employer with your tax file number. the 10% GST is actually not so bad, since its pretty much the only tax on most things. since a lot of stuff already was taxed more than 10%, stuff like cars, computers, etc are now cheaper than before.
>protecting them from those evil refugees on a Norwegian ship trying to land on Christmas Island
We have a policy on refugees and I respect howard for sticking by it. If you look at Americas policy on refugees its actually very similar, your polititions's are just to chicken shit to stand by something if it might lose them votes. If we send the message that we dont accept refugees then we stop having the problem. In any case, most of the refugees come here, then expect us to give then luxury accomodation, internet access, cable Tv, and after dinner mints. stuff which many australians dont have. (Remember the kosovo refugees people?)
>Perhaps they really do need to go to the polls and vote for a positive change to the way their government is presenting their country to the outside world.
America doesnt have a very good reputation to the outside world, in case you didnt notice. You are generaly considered to be illiterate egotistic idiots, and, well anyone that goes on Jerry Springer to resolve personal problems has some serious issues.
Internationalization is coming--driven by technology and mobility. The choice we have is to try and make it work for the people. Of course, that's an uphill struggle: wealthy private institutions have a leg up. But as long as voter participation in the US is still somewhere around 50%, I don't think anybody in the US has a right to complain about the politicians or policies they are getting.
I still cant beleive how moronic Americans can be. "Why, its our constitutional right to cary automatic weapons, kevlar armer, and armer peircing bullets.". Why?. how come you need such firepower? You sit back and watch as crazy teenagers with serious problems blow the shit through each other with weapons that should be reserved for Military use ONLY. You may argue that a pistol can be used for self defence. ok, fine. just dont expect to be allowed to carry around AK47's because some guy 200 years ago in a completely different world said that John Q Citizen could carry around heavy arsenal. in those days heavy arsenal was a 12 Guage, not something that could cut down a tree with a 3 second burst.
Hey I got an idea. how about you cary around a Tazer. cheaper, not lethal, excelent for self defence, and unlike a desert eagle, its very hard to massacre high school students with.
As far as good faith efforts go: Go back and read what I wrote:
The good faith reference has nothing to do with complying with every law, it has to do with restricting the distribution. An example of a good faith effort to restrict the distribution was quoted: namely the use of IP filtering.
Nor does the fact that the user initiated a transaction make much difference. When I go to a shop and buy a magazine, I am also initiating a transaction. Does that mean that magazines sold in shops are not distributed using known distribution networks? Does that mean publishers are not liable because, while they deliberately handed magazines to a distributor knowing that these transactions would take place, they didn't actually initiate the buying of each magazine?
Ultimately the DJ made the decision to publish on the Internet. They made it knowing that the Internet would distribute their content internationally by default, and they made no effort to reduce the further distribution of their content.
It sucks. It's not nice. It shows that libel laws are increasingly out-of-touch with reality. Moreso, it shows national laws governing content are a threat to the Internet. But that doesn't make the procedure any less fair. DJ trades on the Internet in Australia, Britain, France, Canada, indeed, absolutely everywhere except Afghanistan. They're thus liable under the laws of those countries. And without a good faith effort to limit distribution to countries whose laws the DJ may find awkward, they absolutely should be answerable to those laws.
Racists should be sent back to where they came from
Mmmm...tazer...unreliable and very short range. If I miss the first time, I'm fukt. Sounds like fun to me.
.45 is better for something like that. You can conceal it, it doesn't penetrate all that far, but if you hit the guy you're shooting at, it'll DEFINATELY knock his ass down.
3 642/1/). If you have the means to committ a crime, then you're committing a crime. Bullshit! If I'm not hurting anybody, then it shouldn't be a crime.
As for carrying an AK47, as long as I'm a law-abiding citizen, I don't see why that's a problem (though I never particularly mentioned any desire to carry assault weapons, you fabricated that). OTOH, if I open up with an assault weapon and kill or injure innocents with it, I should be put away for a long long time. An AK47 is not really a practical personal defense weapon unless you're expecting to be attacked by a whole mob of people. A hand gun like a USP
And as for moronic, that applies much better to the people who think that despite extensive and unbiased (despite what the gungrabbing nuts claimed when they couldn't disprove it rationally) research demonstrates that "right to carry" laws (basically if you apply for a permit and you don't have a record or anything, you get the permit) significantly reduce violent crime on both short and long term.
Don't take away my freedoms when I haven't committed a crime. That's just wrong. OTOH, I have no problem with some pretty strong punishment if I do committ a crime. It's all an issue of taking responsibility for your actions. The so-called "liberals" in the US seem to think that people shouldn't be forced to take responsibility for their actions. So, since people aren't responsible for their actions, you have to take away any possible way somebody could committ a crime. It's like the parody, The Digital Millenium Rape Act (http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
Ok, I see both of your points. Its the same as if Canadian officials say Brazilian beef has ecoli, I'm very much inclined to believe them -- regardless of what any world trade organizations have to say about the matter.
When I hear Americans whining about NAFTA, however, it almost seems as though its a personal grudge against Canada, for allowing our corporations to do business there with only the same restrictions has American organizations, including sending Canadian employees and what not.
What I don't understand is the softwood lumber dispute. How there can be free trade for anything the US wants to sell to Canada or needs from us, but then they have the power to slap a 20% duty on lumber because American business' don't like it. What the hell is that? It makes the whole thing seem like a sham. But all in all, 80% of our exports go down south so I don't see how NAFTA can be all that bad of a thing. Plus we are Americas biggest export destination as well, so I don't know how it can be bad for them either.
What I'd really like to see is a secured Canada-US perimeter, including Mexico if they get their act together, in which we could freely move and/or migrate.
When I hear Americans whining about NAFTA, however, it almost seems as though its a personal grudge against Canada, for allowing our corporations to do business there with only the same restrictions has American organizations, including sending Canadian employees and what not.
... in fact, I can't think of a single instance I've heard anyone gripe about Canadian companies doing business here, although hearing gripes about American factories moving to Mexico for cheap labor has become almost cliched.
Actually anti-NAFTA rheotric in the US centers far more on Mexico than Canada
I am in favor of nationalization, and did favor NAFTA for a time. The EU has done some good, as has NAFTA. However, as things are currently being implimented NAFTA, the EU, the WTO, and above all WIPO are actively promoting Corporate profits and corporate rights at the expense of national sovereignty and individual rights on so many levels and fronts that one cannot enumerate them all. Extending copyrights in the US (Sony Bono Act, may the tree that killed him live a thousand years) to life+75 years, gutting any reasonable notion of "limited time" required under the US constitution is but one example. US efforts at an international cybercrime treaty and an international DMCA style treaty are two additional examples that will not only gut the rights of Canadians and Europeans, but also of Americans. International treaty has not only become a mechanism whereby corporations can persue policies which would be unconstitutional otherwise, but have also become a mechanism whereby national governments, through the auspecis of international law, can circumvent their own constitutional restraints at the direct expense of the people.
Having the Taliban's notions of propriety shoved down your throat in America seems farfetched, until you remember California extending and enforcing its laws overseas against individuals for committing the unpardanable sin of writing software in order to allow their computer's DVD player to play their legally purchased DVDs under a free operating system not officially blessed by the California Media Cartels. You may be skeptical of such scenerios, but I rather doubt after his experiences in the "land of the free" Dmitry Sklyarov is.
It isn't the concept of internaitonalization that is bad, it is the implimentation which has placed corporate benefits above individual rights and actively diluted national sovereignty without any consideration for the costs and repercussions. In fact, the current implimentation of internationalization is sufficiently bad that, IMHO, the entire process should be stopped and reversed until a better, more just implimentation can be devised.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
For example, the Absolut Beachwear case.
It's in the EC (European Continent) not the EU. Britain has refused to join.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
#1 on the top 8 worst list is means it's the worst of the 8. You read the list backwards (just to annoy people) or you're too lazy to process the information completely as presented.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
Hmm, you had better tell the EU then. According to their website here:
"The European Union (EU) is the result of a process of cooperation and integration which began in 1951 between six countries (Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands).
After nearly fifty years, with four waves of accessions (1973: Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom; 1981: Greece; 1986: Spain and Portugal; 1995: Austria, Finland and Sweden), the EU today has fifteen Member States and is preparing for its fifth enlargement, this time towards Eastern and Southern Europe."