Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Judge Cracks Down on Hyperlinks
The webzine Radikal (mirrored in Holland, because it has been banned in Germany) published several articles on disabling railroad trains (in the context of preventing shipments of nuclear materials); the German national railroad discovered it, and the fun has been going on ever since. Rejo Zenger writes "Today a dutch judge ordered Indymedia NL on the request of the Deutsche Bahn to remove some links from a page on their website. These links were pointing to the mirrors of Radikal sites. A few of these sites were containing two articles that have been forbidden in court before. The links were indirect links (surface links) instead of direct ones to the articles (deeplinks). So, none of the links was pointing to the offending articles directly! The judge "orders Indymedia immediately after receiving this sentence to remove and to keep removed the hyperlinks, which are placed on (a) website(s) under the control of Indymedia, if those hyperlinks lead directly or indirectly to the Radikal articles [...]". This is BAD. As almost all links indirectly point to the Radikal articles we can abolish the web now. The announcement, Dutch with English to follow shortly. The decision of the judge (dutch only)." Indymedia's press release (English) covers it pretty well. Update: 06/21 19:54 GMT by M : My summary in the first sentence has been corrected.
Normally I'm all for free speech. But if they're shutting down indymedia, they have my full support.
Better drop that link to Google then.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
What if a dutch judge ordered the same of a US site? Would it carry any weight? I know our(US) laws dont have much weight in southeast asia...
That indirectly part is pretty suck, but at least the judge isn't trying to judiciate the other site (eg exercising control over his jurisdiction, not trying to extend it via the net).
funny munging
The Deutsche Bashn is the german railroad. Radikal is a german newsletter. Only the website is dutch...
In the USA it's the evil corporate giants, in Western Eurpoe it's the fascist government. :)
Did I get that right?
Blar.
how nested can these indirect links be?
eg, if i put a link on my site to my m8s site who puts a link to his m8s site who has a link to this would i have to remove the link?
The verdict is surprising, since Indymedia NL does not link directly to illegal articles. Until now, only direct links to illegal material were forbidden in the Netherlands.
But how many "degrees of separation" (consectuive link-jumps) are needed until the linking is permissible. Six?
Though I'm not in the Netherlands, I cannot see how this can be logical. One might be able to extend this ruling ad infinitum.
I am the evil aardvark!
Dutch != German!
The Radikal magazine is german, DB (Deutche Bahn) is german, but the articles where published on a Dutch site (Indymedia.nl). So please get your facts strait!
stick this in the google search box:
cache:www.xs4all/~tank/radikal/
for a cached version. Each individual page will have to be treated likewise.
the verdict does not elaborate on which kinds of links are permissible and which are not...
Grey areas such as the above while seem like an outcry when issued, actually do help build valid legislature down the road, as all subsequent cases will have a precident, and each trial will further define the precident...
However, I do agree with the 'abolish the web' statement, because if taken literally, using the 6 degrees of seperation metaphor, everything inderectly links to everything else. Hence the WWW. And when I see deep linking cases out there and settlements against the linker, it confuses the hell out of me. Why post content (KPMG, etc..) on the WWW if you don't want ppl linking to you.... And if your nationality doesn't allow sites which inderectly or directly link to those of Radikal (sp?) articles, then why even allow unrestricted access in the first place. Use Austraila's URL blacklist at the ISP level for chris' 'sakes. Don't punish people for doing something you know they'll do!
dmarien
Does putting a URL without making it a link (so that it has to be cut and pasted) count as linking? It's splitting hairs, but it's just conveying info that way, not linking...
So where does it stop?
The mirror is out of the country. Okay I can't linke to the mirror, but can I link to an underground news site that has a linke to the mirror, that has a link to the "BAD!" information!!!
Or do I have to link to a site that a 12 year old made for his little sister, that links to a wired article, that links to a slashdot page (They totally steal their news from here. P.S.- Hi wired!) , that links to a pr0n site, that links to THIS slasdot article, that links to google, that links to the Queen of Englands home page, that links to the mirror?
So move the link out. And then when re-legislated, link out again. When the laws become too impracticle to enforce they collapse.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
press release: Judge orders Indymedia NL to remove links to Radikal mirrors
Indymedia NL 21.06.2002 01:55
Amsterdam, 20 june 2002
The court case, initiated by Deutsche Bahn (German Rail, DB) against
Indymedia NL, has turned out negative for the latter organisation.
Indymedia NL regrets the facts that the judge in the verdict does not
elaborate on which kinds of links are permissible and which are not. This
ruling will therefore have severe consequences for every person or
organisation that has placed links on the Internet. Due to the structure of
Internet, it is possible to reach any website on the internet, by way of
combinations of links and indirect links.
Deutsche Bahn insisted a couple of weeks ago that Indymedia NL should
remove a number of indirect links of mirrors of the website of the
periodical Radikal. Through the linked start page, numerous articles are
available, including two articles concerning ways of blocking nuclear
transports. These two articles have been ruled illegal in the Netherlands
by the same judge on April 25th 2002. Indymedia NL refused to adhere to the
demand.
In the verdict of June 20th, the judge has ordered to remove the hyperlinks
and to keep them removed, in as far as these hyperlinks lead to the Radikal
articles, either directly or indirectly and notwithstanding whether these
hyperlinks were placed by visitors. If Indymedia NL does not comply with
this order, a penal sum of 5,000 Euros per day can be imposed. The judge
ordered that, like an Internet Service Provider but just as much like the
editors of a newspaper, Indymedia NL is, in principle, responsible for the
content that has been published with its help.
The verdict is surprising, since Indymedia NL does not link directly to
illegal articles. Until now, only direct links to illegal material were
forbidden in the Netherlands. Out of this verdict however, it follows that
indirect links to illegal material are also forbidden, because Indymedia
NLs links only point to copies of the front page of the German periodical
Radikal. It takes more clicks to reach the illegal articles.
Indymedia NL considers the ruling a dramatic limitation of the
possibilities of the Internet and the freedom of speech. Indymedia NL will
probably try to appeal this decision out of principal considerations.
http://www.askthevoid.com
I think I need to walk away now, go live in the woods away from human stupidity, before I have a 'Scannrs' moment.
Would the last of you to leave please lock up and make sure the internet is switched off?
that too many people in power are too ignorant of technology. No one would be dumb enough to ban a website link directly or indirectly of a website in the U.S., because in the long run it doesn't matter. The judge thinks the Internet is some tangible force he can control through judiciary action. On a side note, I thought Denmark was one of the more tech-savvy countries (even more so per capita than the U.S.A). Scratch that off my list of assumptions :)
- tristan
I think the point here, though (If I read correctly) is that the links in question were not linking directly to the offending articles.
I wouldn't have any problem with banning links to those specific articles, but to censor links to Indymedia in general (dislike them as I do) doesn't sound right to me.
A side note to consider on this might be whether or not there is a "free speech" right in the Netherlands.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
If the ruling is posted on-line and the defendant proceeds to link to the ruling, would that be against the ruling? I'm assuming here that the ruling specifies the articles that cannot be linked to. If it specifies them as a URL, then it would be illegal for them to link to the ruling.
Wow, the judge really screwed this one up...
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Free speech is a privilege, not a right
Not in the US. If you are unclear, please refer to the First Amendment ofd the constitution. While most reasonable people would agree with linking to such terrible things should not be done, in the United States it is still your right to do so if you wish. That is one of many things that makes the USA a great place to live, IMHO.
Great Linux Site
What's more puzzling is why American web-forum Slashdot chickened out of linking to any Radikal mirrors as well.
So Dutch National Railroad, let's see you do something about this.
[Heh - there's nothing so brave as using someone else's liability to make a political statement.]
In case I use information from a book in there to find another book elsewhere and use it for bad things!
The US courts don't recognize foriegn court rulings (of this sort,admiralty law is somewhat different). Yahoo US can't be required by the French to remove auctions of Nazi items, even though those auctions violate French law, because Yahoo US is in the US and not in France.
Best Slashdot Co
It seems my site has just become illegal to link to from the Netherlands!
superblog.org: all your favourite blogs on o
NPR is Dutch?
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
Thank you Dutch! I was getting tired of having everyone bashing the USA for our stupid legal system. Its great to know that we are not the only idiots on the planet. Thanks for taking some of the heat off of us.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Aren't the Dutch the all-tolerant ones???
A few points.
1) The linked to articals where about derailing Nuclea Waste Trains, not passenger trains
2) Would you rather have ppl discusing how to do this with out killing any one, or just let the carnage begin
3) The links where to the main page of the site, not the artical. So this now means that in the Netherlands you can not link to anywhere that may link to these articals. I hope Google.nl is watching
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
The trick to it really is to create a link that redirects through a tunnel that links to a documents that forwards you to a subdomain that links to another subdomain that redirects you to the website while spawning numerous pop up windows. We all know gov pc's suck anyway and will crash before they even get half way there. : )
"On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero."
Posting instructions on how to cook meth (which harms no-one) is a reasonable exercise of one's first amendment rights. But posting instructions on how to derail passenger trains, how to build C-4 bombs, or how to permanently destroy a woman's mink coat is inexcusable and deserves no protection.
I disagree. I think the vast majority of speach should be allowed. The only exceptions would be libel and some other minor things, but I'm not even sure about that. Spreading information about how to do something rarely hurts anyone. Acting on that information does. I know how to derail a train and how to build a bomb. Does that hurt anyone? Not a chance. Just because I don't like it ("it" being anything) doesn't mean it should be illegal.
Wow.. I have never seen a stream of thought that starts at "derail passenger trains" and ends at "destroy a woman's mink coat."
The fact is, free speech has to be protected in all but the most extreme of cases..or not at all.
Your chain of thought that I mentioned above is a great example as to why. Do we regulate all speech that could have harmful effects for others? Or does somebody have to choose which type of ill-effects are regulated and which are not? After all cooking meth can certainly lead to some fantastic explosions, which could set your neighbors house on fire. That has ill effects.. just like selling meth does. Why shouldn't that be regulated?
And driving fast can lead to crashes.. so should any speech about how to make your car go faster be banned as well?
Even this case has an interesting free speech question. After all, the dutch magazine was using its speech about derailing trains for a "good cause" as it was dealing with the shipment of nuclear materials. Why shouldn't this be protected?
The fact is, speech is incredibly difficult to regulate and to pick and choose what can and can't be regulated is very difficult. THis is why our courts in the US have always been so reluctant to limit speech in all but the most prudent of ways (the whole yelling "Fire!" in a crowded place is one example).
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
that too many people in the us are too ignorant of the rest of the world. Dutch == Denmark?! sigh.
Two things:
... deserves no protection."
1. In the US, "Free speech" is a RIGHT, not a privilege.
2. There were NOT links to the articles. There WERE links to the website where the articles were located. This is a big difference.
"posting instructions on how to derail passenger trains
The problem with this statement is that the information is out there and can be found easily in a library or on the web.
Would you have a problem with me (re)printing the instructions in the New York Times?
... since it links to a page that links to a page that links to a page that links to a page that links to forbidden articles.
BoD
BoD
Maybe it is good to have understand the whole story from the beginning ...
...
l )
... .. money is an issue ..
It starts way back in 1997 when the German magazine places some of their issues online at a dutch ISP (XS4ALL). In these issues they describe how to derail german trains.
A German Court rules that these documents are illegal and these publications are illegal in Germany. German ISP are orderded to block the URL to XS4ALL. Because blocking something on the internet is virtually impossible these blocks were lifted because a lot of people started to publish mirrors of these documents.
Back to April this year
The German Railroads suddenly notice that these documents are still online and available and through a (dutch) court order forces XS4ALL to take these pages down.
XS4ALL is applealing this decision and they are still in court (you can check the XS4ALL pages at http://www.xs4all.nl/nieuws/overzicht/radikal.htm
At the same time Indymedia plublishes a list with mirrors where these documents can be found
and that is now illegal to. They want to appleal, but as always
I hope this helps.
Rigolo
This kind of thing seems to happen again and again. The major problem seems to be that the legal system has a REALLY poor grasp of what the internet is and how it ticks.
I do think that is is entirely reasonable (and right) to be able to take action against information that is detremental / dangerous... but the people who enforce these 'laws' need to educate themselves so they can make informed descisions about how to handel these problems.
The fact that if this judgement was taken literally would make search engines illegal shows this gap in knowledge perfectly.
The web is not like the rest of the media, and the legal profession needs to learn more about it.
c.
And if you don't mod me down you're a bad moderator:)
0x or or snor perron?!
Of course free speech can result in harm. That is why it is called free, and carefully protected by law. The illegal act is the decision of another individual to use the information to hurt people, not the information itself. The very fact that a human being has free will is dangerous to others, if that person so chooses. If you take the strategy of trying to prevent access to knowledge, eventually a totalitarian regime will arise, and historically those regimes have not been successful. It is better to leave the decision to the individual.
I would have sworn a while back that some study showed that there was less than 6 degrees of separation in 99% of all pages.
It is a slippery slope, when you practice censorship.
Fight Spammers!
Why not just remove the link, but post the URL in its place? It is not a hyperlink and it is up to the user to copy and paste it into the address bar of their browser.
The ruling states that, although the links themselves were indirect, they were accompanied by detailed instructions on how to locate the pages in question. It was this combination which the judge ruled illegal, not the actual link per se.
This aspect should go down well with the Code=Speech crowd: source code (in this case a direct link) is essentially the same as a description/poem/diagram describing same.
The report might well be fair enough in isolation. Open and closed source systems might well be roughly equally secure. All I would add is that with closed systems, you pay the Earth, and they're insecure. At least with most open systems there's no capital expenditure.
I guess an easier way to put it would be that Open Systems are just great value for money!
X.
whoops! hah i should read more closely next time :)
- tristan
Free speech is a privilege, not a right, and it should be used responsibly - not to hurt people.
In the United States of America Free Speech IS a RIGHT... check out the constitution.
I do not believe that the government should restrict any speech that does not cause direct harm to an individual (e.g. hosting web pages with pirated software or child pornography should not be illegal IMHO)
I don't know what crack you are smoking but child pornography does cause harm to individuals, namely psychological and physical harm to the child victims. Child pornography is illegal for a reason and that is to protect children from that kind of harm.
aus.music.scrapbook
...otherwise it's trivial to circumvent the prohibition on direct links only.
For instance, suppose linking directly to document A is banned. Then the hosting site could simply create a page with a "wink wink" link to document A, and the site against which the injunction is placed could link the the page with the "wink wink" link, with identical intent as with a direct link.
In other words, it's perfectly reasonable for a ban to also include indirect links OF WHATEVER LENGTH (arbitrary numbers of pages of "Are you sure? Are you really sure? etc") so long as intent is clear (e.g. putting up silly links to Disney on each of the "are you sure" pages should not absolve them). One can even make a case for neglect if the linker should have known better according to a reasonable-person standard.
Of course, even if the ruling notes this justification -- I don't read Dutch, and I'm leery of trusting a web translator on legalese -- Indymedia isn't exactly an independent with regards to their own case, and probably wouldn't mention this.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
The verdict mentions the sites as well and should therefore be illegal!
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
I can't speak for Germany, but here in the U.S. freedom of speech *is* a right under the first amendment. The Bill of Rights was ratified especially for circumstances like this. This ruling is equivalent banning linking to Amazon because it carries The Anarchist Cookbok
DMCA - Chilling free speech since 1998.
If normal people can't view information on how to disable railroad trains, then only the terrorists will be able to derail trains...
... oh... wait....
What did Germany beat the U.S. in?
Basketball is over, so it isn't that.
American Football hasn't begun yet.
Baseball is going on but I didn't hear anything about it...
Wow it must be some other sport that nobody in the U.S.A. cares about...
Was it some Quake tournament? No because that would have gotten some attention over here in the states, and not to mention the fact that Germany wouldn't stand a chance.
Ahhh it must be hocky. One of those winter sports that Germany is ok at. Wait a second, it can't be hocky because it is in the middle of freakin summer.
It must be a sport that is even lower down the list of coverage and excitement...
Softball? Noboby follows this much, but if Germany beat the U.S.A. in womans softball then congrats to the women of Germany; and to the women of the U.S.A. at least you shave.
Badmitten? Again congrats to the men err women of Germany.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
I don't follow your logic. How does cooking meth, which can rather easily (according to what I have heard on new reports via NPR, CNN, etc.) cause explosions that can kill or maim individuals (not to mention the dangers of the drugs themselves if the cooking is succesful), any less dangerous than instructions on how to build explosives (which can have purposes other than the kill people, such as blowing up rocks before plowing a field)?
Also, how is hosting, or even linking to, child pornography not harming anyone? What about the child in the picture? You may be inclined to argue that the harm has already been done, so displaying the picture causes no further harm, but you'd be wrong. By displaying the picture you are causing further mental pain to the child if they see it, or if someone that they know sees it and then they hear about it.
Having said all that, I agree that there should be a way to stop people from linking (directly or indirectly) to illegal material. However, logically and tehnically, I don't see how it could be done without simply shutting down the illegal material directly. If you tell a website operator that they can't link to X website, then they can setup website Y to link to X, and just link to Y now. If you say they can't link to X within 5 hops, they can open up 6 new websites to create a longer chain. If you say they cannot indirectly link to it at all, then you are pretty much saying that they may not link to ANY website, because eventually they will get back to a search engine, and from there back to the offending material.
I think in this case the judge should have said that the prosecution should go after the offending material (I know it was in another country, but it is not the judge's job to make the prosecutions life easier).
--David
Maybe redundant, but not offtopic. Get it right, mods.
I'm sure the information has been cached and archived in plenty of different places around the net. I wonder if the judge will be issuing a more generic ruling in the future about linking to any site that contains that information.
Then linking to Google will be illegal.
Sorry, but I want to defend the judge a bit. For some stupid reason, this information has been ordered to remain secret. Just like Americans would hide information on their president's plane from terrorists. The judge didn't say anything about hyperlinks in general, he only spoke about Indymedia's intent. Even if it wasn't a link but a Javascript-generated rot13ed copy sung as a MP3 but clearly marked as illegal, it should be judged that way. Case by case, without generalizations. Free speech is an important right. But that's what we have judges for. (As much as I hate them, and yes, I'm Dutch.)
though it is pretty sick...police actions not thoughts
If you want to hide your internal pages, there's a simple way of doing that. In code.
What I mean is: if you don't want linking, create unlinkable pages with session control and stuff.
But that's old news ("Google has also cut access to one or two pages cited in Deutsche Bahn's request letter").
Child porn is funny, because no one would dare defend it, else they be labeled as a pedophile. While child porn is obviously harmful to the child, I think there is a fine line. Is linking to it or hosting it harmful? Is watching it harmful? Does hosting it mean you are the one who did it to the child? If hosting it means you are supporting the crime of child rape, then any site hosting anything that talks about or describes anything illegal is also illegal. The point is for free speech to work, it HAS to protect EVERYTHING. From child pornpgraphy all the way to the Teletubbies an Seseme Street. You can't have free speech about some things, and not others. Who gets to make those descisions?
*nutmegs FatherOfOne for the game-winner*
and the crowd goes wild!!!
goooooooaaaaaal!!!!
next time, don't forget your shinguards.
I think the most important matter is how you advertise the link. If the link says: "get the instructions at this site after clicking link x" that would be disallowed, no matter how indirect you would get. On the other hand, if you linked to the top of the site and the link would say: "the site of Radikal that advocates forcibly stopping trains with nuclear waste" that would be ok, since you are not telling anyone about the offensive material.
IANAL, but this makes most sense to me.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
German is not Dutch indeed (and it is a common mistake), but the annoucement was 100% correct.
Derailing Nuclear Waste trains is hardly a common crime
Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures.
Political violence has been the major tool in the journey along our road to freedom whether you like to admit it or not. More blood will spill, that is the only guarantee.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
The main argument for keeping child pornography illegal is that it is the product of a crime, and that the victims have a right to protection, especially as the pictures in many cases will serve to worsen the humiliation for the victim.
Think about the guy who was sent to prison for 1000+ yrs for running an adult verification system for porn sites some of which happend to have child porn on them. He was charged the same as if he had made the site himself.
Indymedia is independent...
... of any fact (Their reporting is refreshingly fact-free
... of any more independence than anyone else. The term is missused like "alternative". Indymedia is no more independent than ABC News is.
... of any social responsibility. Indymedia gives vent to the lies and hatred of the most radical and racist fascists... as long as they are on the left.
Did they - and if they didn't, why didn't they - demonstrate to the court the absurdity of what they are asking. Simply pick half a dozen or so government sites and show how, within five or so links they too link to the pages the court wishes to censor. Even better if they can show such links from the court service's web site.
Don't forget that the consumers of the material are considered victims too.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Roughly Translated:
This in all honesty I agree with, it's the possesion laws I dislike, if a person posses this material I feel it is within the laws right, for the victims sake, to take that material away from them, however to charge someone for owning it is pushing towards thought crime IMHO
What is soccer?
Enough people have already commented about free speech being a right, not a priveledge, in the US. However, we have no mechanism for dealing with people who abuse rights.
Clearly, free speech was not put in the Constitution to defend people who advocate the destruction of property (especially when it can lead to the spilling of nuclear waste). Unfortunately, we don't get to pick and choose which free speech we want to defend. Why do you think the ACLU regularly defends racist groups in court?
It makes me sick to think that people use the Constitution to defend violent and racist speech, but stopping any kind of speech is unconstitutional in the US and opens a Pandora's box that is better left unagitated.
As far as mink coats- the people who destroy mink coats to protest the treatment of animals are morons. The rich bitch wearing the mink coat is just going to buy another one so more animals will have to die. Some people prefer extreme measures to rational ones.
Freedom of Speech - now thats a trigger word that keeps heads turning.
...
...
Indymedia like Green Peace rely pretty heavy on loads of publicity - so there is nothing better then publishing something a wee bit criminal and terrorist like to get the authorities and therefore the real medias attention.
Something they badly need to get more eyeballs.
I support Freedom of Speech and I support political activists that work WITHIN the accepted limits of our democracy. Derailing or even providing the blue prints for such an action is not my idea of democracy. And it shouldn't be in the focus of indymedia either. Never heard of Gandhi ey?!
There will always be problems with activists, because they are supposed to push our limits as a society and it's ideas whats legal wand whats not.
Currently I see many american civil rights cuts and watered down. This is something that needs FIRM action and pressure from citizen activists.
But action and political pressure shouldn't resort to violence or destruction - otherwise it's going down the road of the RAF, Red Brigades etc.!
One think I always liked about Green Peace is that they tried to hinder companies or governments to do things and smartly put the media on board. Provocation can work wonders if done right.
But blue prints for destruction are not very constructive in a disput how to improve society.
Eco terrorism isn't the choice - it will fail like any other form of this destructive kind of political pressure. Did Baader-Meinhof succed? No. Did the Red Brigades succed? No. Did the Bin Laden, IRA etc. succed? No.
Violence is sure a good thing in our media crazed society to get attention, but it only stiffens the fronts and generates more hate and violence -currently nicely demonstrated between Israel & Palestinia. I guess they trenches are already too deep to ever really come to an agreement anyway
Indymedia should have made a better publicity stunt like those stupid instructions. They should have tried Freedom of Speech with some witty ideas
orangeguru
Underneath all of this is a silly premise. Does anyone need instructions to figure out how to derail a train? Let's see, it runs on two rails which are attached to ties in a certain way. So you either move a rail, or undermine the roadbed, or foobar a track junction or switch, or put something on top of a rail that's big and strong enough to send the wheels off. If the German government is counting on keeping trains secure by not having instructions up on the Net, they must estimate that the people who'd derail them are unusually stupid - and yet they expect they'll know how to read?? Reminds me of an article in yesterday's NY Times about how the Germans are following around a guy they know financed Mohammed Atta, but won't arrest him because they have such a respect for individual rights there. Maybe Germans really are stupid enough to need a manual to figure out how to derail a train?? If you live in Germany, feel very secure.
___
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Excellent troll.
.sig
I especially liked the "free speech is privilage not a right" bit - brilliant.
-- this is not a
google site shows that radikal is mirrored all over the place, but the mirror all seem to point to the official mirror list at http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/radikal/mirror.htmlh ich has been replaced with a photocopy of something (cease and desist order?)
w
I suppose google, the next best thing, is now in violation of Dutch law.
I wonder if it would be ok even under Dutch law to print the url, no anchor tag, say to this mirror site:
http://radikal.linefeed.org/
or would that qualify as manual linking, requiring just a bit of copy and paste?
Perhaps a google search link?
Radikal via Google
That's not a link to Radikal, but to google.
Probably safest for the Dutch to simply say, "We are forbidden to link to Radikal, though Google isn't. This is not an endorsement of Google as a great way to find Radikal related material on the web."
They should just link to something like
this instead.
One thing:
"1. In the US, "Free speech" is a RIGHT, not a privilege."
We're not talking about a site in the US. We're talking about a Dutch judge, making a decision about a Dutch site, which has links to a German site. In no way shape or form do US rights apply here.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
What is this constitution of which you speak? I thought Ashcroft had it banned and all copies burned as terrorist propaganda.
This may be a kind of radical idea, but how about we not derail ANY trains? Sabotage is sabotage and just because the information is targeted at one specific train doesn't mean it couldn't be applied to a different train. I prefer riding the rails without having to worry if some lunatic figured out how many stacked pennies on the tracks it takes to derail it.
Of course, there's a lot of people who claim that information like this should not be released because of the damage it can cause. Yes, I agree. The people erleasing the information should have better judgement; BUT the people should not be arrested either.
Let me explain:
There's also a lot of people who claim guns should be illegal; I beg to differ (and this is an easier analogy).
Criminals will get guns regardless of whether they're legal or not. Most criminals don't even get guns legitimately; they're usually stolen from gun shops, other people, or bought from gun shows, where they don't have to follow the 7-day laws. Either way, they're acquired through the black market. Criminals (or at least intelligent criminals) don't just go out and buy assault rifles, because they know they can be traced.
If guns were criminalized, all it'll do is prevent legitimate owners from purchasing them for self defense. Now our problem is the personality of this country (the states) where crime runs rampant, the punishment doesn't make sense (I'd get more time for trafficking weed than killing someone), so people don't really have a reason to act responsibly.
In effect, if someone really wants to derail a train, they -will- find out; however, people who know should show enough responsibility to not tell everybody, as it can easily become some twisted game for a bunch of teenagers. As they've obviously shown, they don't have that responsibility, and of course, the government wants to punish them.
What it comes down to is we need to reevaluate our moral responsibilites, and keep the government out of it...
I dunno, I think I'm just rambling now, but it sense (to me) at one point....
Indymedia first came to major prominence in its support of people like the Seattle protestors.
The anti-WTO protests explicitly seek to deny people their rights of free speech and assembly. They think that these rights apply only to them. They seek to shut down and silence meetings by those whose speech and activities they oppose.
The anti-WTO nazis are worthy of nothing but contempt.
It sounds like they don't have that whole "freedom of speech" thing the same way it exists in the U.S. Yeah, there's a lot of corporate hoo-ha on trying to limit freedom of speech, what is speech, and so on, but I don't think this case could ever fly in the US. So my advice to the Dutch and the Germans would be to get protected speech.
My other bit of advice would be to find the dumbass who think's it's a cool idea to derail trains carrying NUCLEAR MATERIAL and explain to him why having a freightcar load of NUCLEAR MATERIAL spilling onto the ground might not be a good idea.
The biggest problem (and greatest benefit) with free speech is that everyone gets it. Even dumbasses who want to dump a bunch of radioactive crap on the ground. Anybody who would even consider doing something like this has got to have fecal material in their cranium.
Once upon a time there was a dragon, whenever you chopped of it's head two new one popped out...well, that is how the internet works."
and now Yahoo says (again) that KPNQ may shut down the network today.
Perhaps it's hard to find investors for such an illegal business activity in the Netherlands?
Ahhh, Europe! A bastion of free speach and free thinking. NOT!!!
You are of cause correct in this. However there have been times in the recent past where a Dutchman would have recived a medal from the UK for derailing a German train. (See WW2 for examples)
The thing is though; if we let juges get away with banning links in this case what will happen next. Will I suddenly find that I'm not allowd to link to an anti Microsoft site, because they use this case as a president on banning linking and combine it with some week law on defomation.
Its time we reminded the rulers that they rule at our sufference and don't rule to make us suffer.
Wouldn't it be nice if schools got all the money they wanted and the army had to hold jumble sales for guns
And, of course, the techniques are totally different.
Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
these "Radikal" jackoffs sound like terrorists to me. It doesn't bother me that they're cut out of society.
BC
Looks like slashdot might get in trouble. Heres a link to the mag
"All I can tell the "lesser of two evils" folks is that if they keep voting for evil, they'll keep getting evil."-Lp.org
Meth doesn't hurt anyone? Your brain must have been affected by some of the meth you use. Forget the science, which is sufficient to call your opinion uninformed, to say the least.
I only have to consider the innocent people that have been killed by drivers high on meth, or meth users themselves. They can take themselves out of the genetic pool if they wish, but they have no right to remove others from that pool. People strung out on meth lose their social responsibility and become an economic burden on society and a danger to it, as they resort to crime and violence to support their meth habit. Many of them think they will support their own habit by manufacturing the stuff and then hooking school kids or other unsuspecting or weak minded individuals.
You are certainly doing your part to spread lies about the 'harmlessness' of meth. This makes them truely the scum of the Earth, right along side child abusers.
So free speach as long as you agree with it? That ain't free speach buddy. Either you are for free speach or you are against it.
Heh. What can you expect from the place that gave the world Karl Marx, Ceucescu, Zhirinovsky, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Hoxha, Lenin, Olav Palme, Honnecker, Tito, and Milosevic. That is mostly in the past 60 or so years.
For much of the 20th century, most of Europe at one time or another was ruled by a socialist totalitarian dictatorship. Even more territory is tainted by slightly more benign democratic socialism.
... This judgment doesn't mean 'It is illegal to link to any page that links to illegal material'; nor does it imply the inductive consequence thereof, that it's illegal to be connected to illegal material by any finite series of links.
What it says is that people have previously been linking directly to illegal material, and got called on it, and made to stop. Now someone thinks they're getting round that by making it two-click. The ruling basically says 'Quit taking the piss'...
Now if someone links to another page, which has some innocent links and then one saying 'HEY EVERYONE! THIS WAY FOR THE ILLEGAL STUFF!' that goes to the Radikal page, which then says 'ILLEGAL STUFF HERE GUYS!' and points to the docs themselves, it's clear enough that they're taking the piss, too. This sort of behaviour is (a) silly and (b) probably contempt of court.
It's really just a matter of what material you define as illegal. I think a state has the right to keep secret the location of nuclear materials, and I think it's also reasonable to clamp down on the kind of incitement to commit crime described.
Once the Dutch start thinking that things like DVD players or e-book readers should be considered illegal, then I'll worry. But no reasonable jurisdiction would ever get that silly...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
How does cooking meth, which can rather easily (according to what I have heard on new reports via NPR, CNN, etc.) cause explosions that can kill or maim individuals
Propaganda. Although any chemical lab can have accidents, having to work in secret does make it slightly more dangerous. Solution? Make meth lagal, and license labs to make it. That way, the govt can make sure all safety precautions are taken.
By displaying the [child porn]you are causing further mental pain to the child if they see it, or if someone that they know sees it and then they hear about it.
Then the pain is caused by them SEEING the porn, not by my (hypothetically speaking) having a copy. Unless I was the one to show them the porn, I'm not responsible.
"Yeah, there's a lot of corporate hoo-ha on trying to limit freedom of speech"
The biggest danger to free speech is always the government. Look at the DMCA (an act of Congress)Look at the political correctness rules in government-run schools and colleges. A certain percentage of the outcry over "corporate censorship" is actually businesses controlling what they publish/print/say themselves (which is free speech and not censorship).
No, not correct:
When trying the search for "kleiner leitfaden" (which is German for "handy guide") in Google Groups you will go to here , then choose the third message and look at the Complete Thread. You will go to here , than scroll up and you'll see one of the forbidden articles.
Then, try the same "kleiner leitfaden" in Google WWW. You will go to here. . The seventh link is pointing to here and again you will have the article in front of you.
Then, enter the title of the forbidden Indymedia site in Google WWW. The first link, try the Cache: here
Enough said.
Granted the subject matter involved is spooky, and I really dont want anyone monkeying with any train with a nuclear payload, but still.
We're back to ANOTHER linking issue! WTF? Did the New York Times ever go down for doing the same exact thing as 2600?
The principle issue at hand is the general ignorance (about the net and how it works) of those who create, enforce, and rule on the laws.
There are a great number of people with a decent level of understanding about the internet, and sufficient common sense to know what just is a Very Bad Idea(TM). But basically none of them are in lawmaking bodies around the world. They aren't greatly organized, they don't have a powerful lobby, they don't pack the monsterous cash warchests that the corps have. So what happens?
You get:
1)Trigger situation - someone does something somewhere related to computers or the net that some other body disapproves of, legal or otherwise.
2)Very Bad Law - disapproving body (often big corp) goes after (paid for or otherwise) new law that is so over the top that it looks completely loony to anyone who understands the technologies involved.
3)Uproar - you and I and everyone else wets themself laughing then realizes that there could be very bad consequences.
4)Sacrifical Lamb - some poor bastard (usually the poor soul from item 1) is hung out to dry while courts and lawmakers argue point they likely don't understand, insert paid experts from all sides. And lawyers, lots of lawyers.
5)Bad Law - eventually everything settles down and Very Bad Law goes away, but Bad Law is put in its place. Compromise isn't always a good thing.
Most Bad Laws regarding technology that we have now are actually the sons of Very Bad Laws.
I'm going to wallow in my own ignorance here, but.. Who really cares about a court ruling in a small country that can never be enforced? It wouldn't be so hard to set up a web-hosting account outside the country, at least till this gets fully worked out in their legal system. Are the Dutch so terribly oppressed? I would say its not newsworthy for Salshdot, except that the reaction on here makes it so. Just relax and kick-back. It's all good.
Very disturbing.
I know, also a bit funny and clever, but I can imagine all too easily that this gem of knowledge will be used by disgrunted people, causing stupid loss of material or worse.
Koen the Dutchman
HOWEVER... the court already banned the articles from being shown. So, what do the defendants do? They get rid of the articles and point people where they can get them.
uh....HELLO? Did they think the judge would be OK with this? What the heck did they expect??
If you want to find out how to derail trains. Go to the *library*.
Gonna put me in jail now huh? I've linked to a place where this information is avilable...
Make KDE illegal, long live Gnome, so ruled a Dutch Judge this morning. Nobody has the authority to judge what is right and what is wrong. A lawyer argues about how to legally commit murder (take him to Somalia, do it there, then come back to the US no crime committed, fine by a US lawyer). Maybe that's why more lawyers commit suicide than anybody else? If you go to the conservative American heartland, if you have some marijuana in your hand they'll treat you like you're binLaden himself. Everybody has different judgement criteria.
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
Check out the facts ! The 2600 case showed the US right to free speech doesn't work against corps.
I hope Mattel SLAPPS those rip-off artists into oblivion: for the most part their are trying to cash in on Barbie dolls. Why don't they just cash in on something of their own creation?
Gotta love SLAPP. The Ralph Nader far-left nuts have made frivolous lawsuits a way of life and a means to great personal profit and power. Good to see the victims fight back.
Banning direct links obviously doesn't work, which is why you say it's "reasonable" to also ban indirect links of any length. So option 2 is obviously out. That leaves us with:
There are many examples, papers, discussions etc on how most web pages are indirectly linked to another. Following your own logical progression, it would therefore be "perfectly reasonable" for a ban to include the entire web. Obviously that would be silly. Which leaves us with the remaining option:
It's as simple as that. This is why law is in general really twisted and complicated - it gets far too wide reaching otherwise. Sounds to me like this judge hasn't quite grasped the consequences that result from this. Or the logic, for that matter. IANAL, blah.
Propaganda. Although any chemical lab can have accidents, having to work in secret does make it slightly more dangerous. Solution? Make meth lagal, and license labs to make it. That way, the govt can make sure all safety precautions are taken.
I think the problem is less that people have to work in secret to make the druges, and more that a lot of people who find this information on the internet and then try it out are just stupid.
Then the pain is caused by them SEEING the porn, not by my (hypothetically speaking) having a copy. Unless I was the one to show them the porn, I'm not responsible.
By publicly displaying the porn you would (or should, by my thinking) be responsible. You're argument is akin to me laying a mine in my yard, right next to the sidewalk, with a sign next to it that simply said "mine, don't touch." and then saying it was the seven year old's own fault he stepped on the mine. When you are doing something in a public forum (which the internet is) then there should be a greater degree of responsibility.
--David
First, just because a country calls it a RIGHT, doesn't mean it is, or should be. In Arkansas, for example, it's legal to beat your wife, as long as you don't do it more than once a month. Just because this state as given me this right, doesn't mean the right is "right".
In addition, America does not follow the freedom of speech unless it feels like it. To quote the 1st admendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, if this were actually followed to the letter, why is it illegal for me to:
Tell people how to crack DeCSS
Write false things about people (libel)
Transmit violent or sexual fiction over TV airwaves?
Speak profanities over TV airwaves?
Write erotica describing sex with children
Draw (or render) child pornography
Tell others how I want to kill the president
Nowhere in those five words "...abridging the freedom of speech" does it say ANYTHING about it being ok to abridge my freedom of speech if it hurts someone else, offends someone else, is not true, or just considered bad by those in power.
"2)Very Bad Law - disapproving body (often big corp) goes after (paid for or otherwise) new law that is so over the top that it looks completely loony to anyone who understands the technologies involved."
The real reason for the very bad law is that a bad legislator approves it. Likely someone who is corrupt, violating the law themselves, or violating their oath of office.Nothing to do with "big corps" really; the bad legislator can get bribed by anyone, including dangerous special interest groups that claim to be operating in the public interest.
like the typical "can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater". I think that is what the poster intended.
While it IS a right, it is NOT an unlimited right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, etc. Whether you like or not, there ARE limits.
The real question is: does this go past the limits?
You mean like lawyers do with... the law? The truth (and I mean that quite literally) is that every tiny little plausible interpretion of the law is exploited when it's to somebody's advantage. Intent doesn't matter, application is blind in the hands of expensive lawyers or large corporations. See Scientologists for a prime example. It does actually happen.
I think the problem is ...that a lot of people who find this information on the internet and then try it out are just stupid.
Good. Kill off the stupid people, and the average IQ of the nation goes up!
notice how Slashdot didn't link to this Zine, either.
(Let alone deep linkin)
- undoware.ca
At least this way there's no confusion
about what is a right. OTherwise, what is
it? You say X is a right, somehow, I say "no,
it isn't". This argument is endless.
Considered harmful.
This is mostly a repost of a comment I posted on the Indymedia NL website, but here it is for the slashdotters...
A comment on the Indymedia NL webstite state that:
This ruling [will] have severe consequences for every person or organisation that has placed links on the Internet.
Definately, It does. Now, I wonder shouldnt Indymedia NL, or other vigilantes (wink), now take this to the very people involved? Namely Deutsche Bahn and any Websites that may exist for the Nertherlands legal system. Perhaps it can be discovered that they too, have indirect links to the banned materials? This may take some searching, and if I knew some German, I would do this myself. Of course, if anything was found as such Indymedial NL should be made aware.
So perhaps, if the very legal system or even the plantiffs can be found to be guilty of the same action Indymedia NL has been penalized for, perhaps the ruling can be showed for what it is. Inane.
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. -- Walt Whitman
Arguably there would be much less harm if
societal attitudes towards sex, children,
sex and children, etc., were changed.
So in this way, religion has caused, and still is,
a lot of psychological harm to individuals.
Considered harmful.
To my knowledge it was not about derailing trains, but about sabotaging the signals, so they would stay on red, thus forcing the train to stop. The reasoning behind this was to drive the costs of nuclear waste transportation by Deutsche Bahn.
In Germany that's of course still illegal as there are special laws against train sabotage.
If a site that you're linking to is spreading libel or slander, and it's fairly clear, then you probably shouldn't be linking to it except for the sake of argument. If it's a meticulously accurate site, or a clear parody, and the relevant type (*) is protected under your local law, you probably shouldn't have to worry.
(*) In some jurisdictions, truth as a defense does not outweigh malevolent intent, IIRC. In some places, such as dictatorships, merely linking to a "we don't like the ruler 'coz..." site might be an unhealthy idea.
Perhaps under Dutch law, spreading information that isn't particularly useful except for sabotage (For instance, while one might argue that it informs policy decisions by showing a risk, another might claim that it would be much more responsible to point out that there IS a risk without illustrating the method. In this case, the latter would seem plausible since the underailable train might not have been engineered yet.) might be considered as an accessory, or perhaps as some sort of national security violation -- unless their judicial system is incredibly arbitrary, they need a better justification than mere dislike. Ask a Dutchman.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
http://home.t-online.de/home/wmeyenberg/eisenba
Partway down is a picture of a train derailer.
Seriously, you can go to the local hardware store and buy the necessities to derail a train for under $20.00.
Our society is based on trust - the trust that most people are smart enough to know how to do things like this, but also smart enough to know that it would be a dumb thing to do it.
This is what makes legislated morality so stupid - you just can't legislate morality - you teach it by example.
But indymedia is crap.
Most railroad tracks have a very low voltage current running through them so if a track breaks, they can tell there is a problem before a train crashes. All you have to do is get a few feet (maybe 6 or 7) of some pretty thick metal wire, solder/attach both ends to the track as far apart as the wire will reach. Get a big sledge hammer and knock the track apart. The wire will carry the voltage accross the break in the track so the train company won't think anything is wrong.
Here are some pieces of the ruling, (loosily) translated from this version in dutch.:
:))
8. [...] Because Indymedia allows users visiting her website to place information on the internet, she is, like an ISP, but also like a daily newspaper, responsible for the through her means placed publications, be it with limitations inherent to the medium. Because Indymedia knows that some of the links placed on her website lead to the illegal articles, she should have taken countermeasures to prevent the spreading of the illegal information. It doesn't matter if Indymedia, being a press medium, actually claims ownership of the information. The question of which type of hyperlinking was used is irrelevant. The point is Indymedia makes it technologically possible to reach the information. It is also irrelevant that happened indirectly. Also because the site asked users to visit the illegal articles and contained explicit instructions on how to reach them. The fact that the illegal articles will remain on the web even if Indymedia removes her links, doesn't take away the illegal acts of Indymedia. Allowing hyperlinks isn't the issue here. It is about the information one links to. Furthermore, Indymedia said they couldn't remove the links, but do, on their site, claim to be able to remove articles about 'stolen software and fascistic content'.
9. Because the two Radikal-articles are offending to the Deutsche Bahn and can be dangerous for people and objects, the ruling to have Indymedia remove the hyperlinks and thereby making it impossible to reach the articles, is not violating the freedom of speech or freedom of press.
So because once Indymedia knew the links were on it's site, and the links came with instructions on how to reach the articles, which can create life-threatening situations for the DB railroad people, it was in error. Because of the nature of the articles, it can be enforced to remove the links. And also note that the instructions are important. Merely removing the a-href-tag around the URL won't make it legal.
Also note that here in the Netherlands we think differently about freedom of speech (and press) than the US. While Americans are keen on absolute freedom, we dutch put a couple of restrictions on things, like racism and discrimination ofcourse, but also like bringing people to commit violence (like the articles in question).
(I hope my translation isn't too crappy
Most Bad Laws regarding technology that we have now are actually the sons of Very Bad Laws.
And most Very Bad Laws are the sons of multiple Bad Laws that weren't objected to strongly enough the first time.
Nope, no sig
Posting instructions on how to cook meth (which harms no-one) is a reasonable exercise of one's first amendment rights. But posting instructions on how to derail passenger trains, how to build C-4 bombs, or how to permanently destroy a woman's mink coat is inexcusable and deserves no protection.
On the contrary, cooking meth does indeed harm many people. Have you ever seen one of those meth houses explode? It's not a pretty sight. Not to mention, this means that home-made, test-batches of meth will end up on the streets possibly killing these idiots.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I don't see the part in this that says "As long as I deem it appropriate, and can somehow justify it to myself."
-- p06 "On religious wars: They're essentially wars over whoo's imaginary friend is better"
> linking to articles that provide detailed instructions for sabotaging trains and killing dozens,
> if not hundreds of innocent people, should not be tolerated.
Nice troll. Neighter a train stopping for a red sign nor a train stopping because of lack of power harms any people, and that's what the articles are about.
Fellow Slashdotter Gets Sued by Coalition of American Railroad, German Railroads ask for Warrant
Fellow Slashdotter wytcld was sued today by a coalition of American railroads for violating the DMCA by posting several possible ways to circumvent the technological measure of using rails to protect trains from being derailed.
In addition, German and Dutch railroads have jointly filed for a warrant to be issued for both the Slashdotter's arrest and the arrests of Slashdot editors so that they may try them for posting and linking to illegal information that detailed how to derail a train.
Hmmm..
Kevin Bacon ->
Web Browser ->
Google ->
Google search list result ->
Article
Don't give spammers any ideas dude.
--did you ever see the official CIA terror and torture manual? The one which they trained dictatorship goon squads with, like at the 'school of the america's"? MUCH worse than this other stuff. And if you are a US person and are old enough, your tax money went to not only publish that free speech, but to pay the goon squad trainers as well, guys with american flag patches and government pensions. Basically mercenaries who pose as "patriots", IMO.
Besiders that, any europaen judge or UN bureaucrat can bite me. And their corporate fascists are just as bad as ours, and their bureaucracy is just as corrupt, and their left wingers are just as much "useful idiot" stooges as our domestic clueless ones. The ultra left in europe is mostly lame when it comes to what they are doing, they really honestly don't understand how they are just puppets at the end of the strings of various fascists. They merely THINK they are "for the people", when in reality they are pawns used in the problem/reaction/solution scams that the real fascists pull off all the time. 9-11 wtc/pentagon attack is yet another example where one group of brainwashed stooges was used to further a political agenda much beyond what they thought was happening.
Same thing with the europaen "radikals".
Free speech only exists when you are strong enough to use it. Everything else is illusory.
Since the US seems dedicated to making the rules of the DMCA apply around the entire world, I say that somebody ROT13's the thing and if anybody tries to break it, they sue for bypassing encryption without autherization!
How do you know that they broke it? Well simple, who ever sues you MUST have broken the encryption in order to know what was in the file!
\!_!/
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
This aspect should go down well with the Code=Speech crowd: source code (in this case a direct link) is essentially the same as a description/poem/diagram describing same.
Yes, you're right. The judge is showing that the code and the hyperlinks are a expression of the intent of the person writing. THAT SHOULD BODE WELL WITH MOST GEEKS.
But, you see, most geeks (IMHO) are radicals in their mind and want to see their world altered in their own image instead of really wanting people to act individually as they wish.
You raise a good point, but when you come down to it, you are going against their anarchist roots with such a statement. They secretly want the world to be the geek universe, where their minds are paramount, and all else is trivial. Too bad the world would rebel against them just in the same way they did against Hitler when his ideas were applied en masse.
Not to say that I don't agree with some of the geek ideals, some are really appealing, but I would rather let the world protest and then weed out what the world wants to see, instead of trying to stop railways with lethal effect.
Unfortunately, all of life is a struggle to get what you want out of the herd at the expense of the herd for yourself. That is, until you realize that THERE IS NO HERD BUT PEOPLE... PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE HAPPY AND PURSUE THEIR DREAMS AND IDEAS. Most of the geeks I know are so dejected by their mental differences between others that they see most strangers as idiots, dangerous, or worse yet some kind of meat puppet useful only to the geeks personal end.
If they have a problem with people linking to them then they need to simply rewrite any connections that are not referred from their domain to their homepage.
...but it is all by the choices of individual lawmakers of whether or not to do something bad.
Want to knock a blow to the lobbying loop? Make a term limit of a single term (maybe let them back in after staying out 4 years). That way there is no incentive for them to obey lobbyists.
Of course, it is still a bandaid on the problem of corrupt politicians. Clinton forced the spending of tens of millions for his crimes by getting away with obstruction of justice... and even now the government is still wasting money on him. Then there is Nixon.
Pretty confusing to call soccer "football", when there is another entirely different game that is also called that. Call it "soccer" and get it over with; no confusion anymore.
Football (aussie, american, rugby, etc) is one thing. Soccer is another.
Free speech is a right everywhere, part of every human being's birthright. It's not granted by the Constitution, just recognized, and it can't be revoked by any government.
What many people seem to forget is that even a God-given right doesn't absolve you of the consequences of your actions. You can exersize your free speech by lying under oath, but you're still guilty of perjury. You can falsely yell "fire!" in a crowded theatre, but if you try it should expect to end up in jail. There are also laws against making threats, libel, slander, incitement to riot, harassment, etc. You may also agree to voluntarily limit your own speech in return for certain kinds of employment or to gain access to sensitive information, maybe by taking an oath or signing a contract.
For any society to function there have to be some rules of interaction. Sometimes that includes limiting access to information that is a threat to society. Obviously the hard part is deciding what is truly a threat, and what limitations are justified. To argue that all such limits are equally bad is unrealistic.
Same as the axe to grind with nazism. but communism is even worse in the death toll and amount of oppression.
This is the first time you lay the link between this guy and a pedophile. So how is a 14 y.o. girl that talks about sex on the level a 50 y.o. a target for a pedophile? This has absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia at all and not a single crime has been committed since there was no sex with a minor and it's not even possible to prove there was the intent to have sex with a minor or even that this guy thought the girl really was 14. According to most ppl not living in china, iran, egypt and the USA, this is _not_ normal.
0x or or snor perron?!
Just oral defecation here folks, nothing to see, move along.
""Free speech is only free if you own a printing press" - Unk"
Getter go correct old Unk. Free speech is free if you own a mouth.
Indymedia are terrorists? Please explain with evidence, Mr. A.C. I know this thread is a troll, but all the responses so far defend free speech without defending indymedia. Indymedia was instrumental in getting news out about the WTO protest in Seattle as well as alternative news regarding the war in Afghanistan. To my knowledge they have never, as an organization, advocated violence or terrorism. You may not agree with their perspective, but it is cowardly to put down one of the few alternative voices on the corporate media landscape. The protection of dissenting voices is the hallmark of a free society.
I agree, it seems logical. 'dutch' and 'deutsch' really look simmilar, but they are NOT. The text on /. makes one mixup after the other so let's put the things in the right place.
People from the Netherlands (Nederland) are dutch (nederlands). (The word 'Holland' is ufed to refer to the western part is the Netherlands.)
People in Germany (Deutschland) are german (deutsch).
Radical is a german bulletin which was posted on www.xs4all.nl. The atricles in question were on disrupting the german railways. The 'Deutsche Bahn' (in germany, not dutch) found the articles on the dutch server and asked xs4all to remove the articles.
Xs4all is really cool. It was started about 10 (more or less) years ago by a few hackers who wanted legal and cheap access to the internet for all.
Anyway. The german railroads asked the dutch to take off the Radical site.
I hope it helps to understand the article.
Privacy is terrorism.
These guys were trying to cause a nuclear or enviromental accident? Why? What the hell is the point of that?!?!
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
This story is fake! It has to be fake. It must be fake.
As every Slashdot reader outside of the United States will tell you, the United States is the only nation in the world that restricts freedom of speech. Prominent Linux kernel hackers are boycotting the US but not Holland. Microsoft, RIAA and MPAA are in the US, not in Holland. So this story can't be real because it's set in Holland.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
This bunch of leftist idiots fulfills every last stereotype about leftists, including anti-Semitism and support for terrorism.
Check out this site, for example. Supposedly a "Palestine IMC", it's full of anti-Jewish ranting and Palestinian propaganda. Hell, they still act like Jenin was a massacre, instead of a hard-fought battle against guerilla fighters in an urban setting. Blowing up 60 innocent people on a bus, that's a massacre. Blowing up 60 innocent people during a religious ceremony, that's a massacre.
The idiots who run and contribute to the site regularly post crap from the anti-Jewish, racist National Alliance, old "blood libel" posts, and openly use anti-Jewish slurs. They even lie through their teeth, claiming "provocateurs" post their anti-Jewish, hateful statements.
Indymedia deserves no respect or support, because they serve no useful purpose. All Indymedias should be shut down.
The judge ordered to remove all the hyperlinks to the german articles. www.slashdot.org surely refers to a site, but I wouldn't think it's a hyperlink.
;)
And yes, sadly it's true. I think it's time to escape from the Netherlands to a better place
Privacy is terrorism.
BTW, the Supreme Court decided that rendered child porn, where no actual children are involved is, while not neccesarily protected, is not automatically NOT protected. In fact, the only things on your list that are currently, actually, illegal are the first 2.
Hey, someone posted the "original"..
mod it up!
Actually, virtual child pornography is not illegal.
TodayTM BillyJoelTM GoogleTMd for StitchTMes due to WindowsTM while RollerbladeTMing with an AppleTM and a PopsicleTM
I agree with those smart people! The best way to show the dangers of nuclear energy is to derail a train and let the contents spill over a large area. That'll show the government!
So I guess it should be OK to discuss plans for flying airplanes into some other important building/site and go about without harrassment from the authorities? After all, you haven't actually flown an airplane into anything, and for all they know you didn't really have any intent to do so.
Thats some mighty great logic you have there.
From the press release:
/. was based in .NL, doing this would be illigeal.
In the verdict of June 20th, the judge has ordered to remove the hyperlinks
and to keep them removed, in as far as these hyperlinks lead to the Radikal
articles, either directly or indirectly and notwithstanding whether these
hyperlinks were placed by visitors. If Indymedia NL does not comply with
this order, a penal sum of 5,000 Euros per day can be imposed. The judge
ordered that, like an Internet Service Provider but just as much like the
editors of a newspaper, Indymedia NL is, in principle, responsible for the
content that has been published with its help.(My emphasis)
First, that means that if
Second, the judged rulled that as an ISP, Indymedia NL, is responsible for the content of their client.
I really hope that the Dutch constitution isn't to dependent on Jurisprudence, otherwise this rulling is definitely a Bad Thing(tm)
Murphy(c).
Freedom of expression is a right according to the Grundgesetz, but it can be limited under certain circumstances. I suspect the Dutch constitution will have similiar provisions.
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which could be considered the European equivalent of the US Bill of Rights says in Article 10:
Both Germany and the Netherlands ratified this convention in the 'fifties.
For a meaningful comparison of speech which in the US has been ruled as not protected consider the case of anti-abortion activists:
These people were found guilty of accessory to murder, creating the web pages in question for the explicit purpose of directing 'activists' to murder targets. This use of speech is not protected (apprpriately imho) under the constitution.It is also imho fallacious to say that "Anyone else can link / post / whatever this material, why are these organizations [radikal / indimedia] being prosecuted?"
In fact intent matters in many (probably most) legal proceedings. If these self-appointed protectors of my safety choose to act as accessories to violent acts then they risk having problems with the authorities.
Additionally, most network providers Acceptable Use Policies ban the placement / transmission of illegal material. The systems for isolating ISP's who do not subscribe to a minimal set of AUP standards are not as good as I would like to see them, but at least there is some internet policing / agreement on spam and crackers / script kiddies.
Unfortunately there are no simple tech solitions for this set of societal issues. That means that these things will sometimes be settled by the courts.
Linux is Linux, if One need clarify their dist: <Dist>/GNU Linux
bsds are of course just BSD
Anyone have the links? I'd like to see what the whole fuss is about form the source.
The German Grundgesetz requires a legal basis for the restriction of fundamental rights, including freedom of expression. What law justifies prosecuting somebody merely for informing others how to do damage, while not actually inciting it?
So I guess this means we have to ban matchbooks now.
For that matter, isn't it an indirect link if they mention in non-link text the name of the court or even the name of their own government?
Good thing that judge didn't ban pointers to Kevin Bacon, or we'd ALL be dead.
Now, should such content be published and widely accessible? If the article is bogus and does not describe a real threat, it doesn't matter. Now, let's say that the article described techniques that actually work. It was published, what, five years ago? If it still poses a threat, we have to conclude that this kind of transport just cannot be made safe, in which case it shouldn't be carried out. If a bunch of adolescents can describe this in a low-quality rag, real terrorists can certainly figure it out as well. Whichever way you look at it, the article should not pose a threat to actual nuclear transport or rail travel.
This just goes to show again that security through obscurity is as stupid when it comes to physical security as when it comes to computer security. Sadly, much of our government spooks are living by that principle, and we all pay the price, both in loss of civil liberties and loss of life.
Read that second clause again:
.)
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
That second clause makes a joke out of any "free speech" guarantee you think you have--it says that speech is free-- EXCEPT when the government says it is not.
I leave it as an exercise for the student to demonstrate that ANY restriction on ANY speech can be legally justified by sufficiently bending the letter of "..are necessary... in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary".
Most European countries have a similiar clause. Canada has a similar clause, Great Britain has one. The United States does not. Instead, we have "Congress shall make no law abridging...." Notice, no "except for such restrictions as are deemed necessary..." clause, either. Even so, throughout our 225 year history, federal, state and local governments have tried to restrict speech, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances and the press, but have been beaten back by those willing to fight in the courts for their rights. It's still happening, and will continue to happen, but I think things will eventually shake out into sanity again.
Why? Because we have a 225-year history and tradition that speech is free --and attempts to remove traditional freedoms just get under people's skins. The former monarchies of Europe do not have a good tradition of free speech and press, they have always subordinated freedom to the needs of the State, and (IMHO), Europeans tend to either (a) trust their government too much, or (b) feel they can't do anything about it anyhow. (And if you don't like (b), why the hell did you all decide to saddle yourself with Parlimentarian Democracies when you tossed out the absolutist monarchs? That just substitutes the tyranny of the majority for the tyranny of the monarch--so long as the majority party is the majority, it can do anything it wants, and the minority, even if it represents 49.9% of the country, can do nothing
---dragoness
A caveman dreams of being us, the incalculable power and riches. We dream of being Q, then what?
...I'm the one who ends up paying for stuff like guarding railroad tracks or onsite storage of nuclear waste to avoid moving it by train. So when I'm told that my taxes have to be spent because it is easy to derail a train, I say: let me see the documents. I want to be the judge of whether it is easy enough to be a real threat. It is not right that the government can whip up a scare and then ban the documents that would let me judge for myself whether it is for real or not.
Does cause some people to panic.
And this article is about nuclear terrorism, like it or not. 'Stopping' those trains is the first phase in robbing them. And robbing them is the first phase in building bombs.
No, it ain't that simple. Only IndyMedia is forbidden to link to, say the daily newspaper NRC Handelsblad, because of http://www.nrc.nl/internet/internetcolumn/10194512 57927.html.
Anyone else stil can.
Free clue. Anyone who says "I'm a huge supporter of free speech, but...", isn't.
Poe was a hack! This not-very-early post for spreading awareness about Poe being an untalented hack!
Look at the DMCA and the 2600 case. The lawmakers and judges here are just as clueless.... Learned juror = oxyMORON
yes, but this case isn't taking place in the US, so in the court/country mentioned, there is no right to free speech.
As far as I know only the US has the right of free speech granted to it's citizens.
- Hyperlinks are not illegal by them selves
- But this information is ordered already
as out of bound. And the comments point
to them directly (hyperlink and verbal
explanation to get further).
- The owner of site specifically reserved the
right to edit content.
- So they where not
able to claim they had no control over
comments uploaded.
- Thus they are told to do what they where
expected and are proven able to do with
reasonable cost.
- Thus they are convicted of paying all costs.
The middle point is important - they reserved the right to edit themselves - and did so - so they cannot maintain they could not comply with the second point. N DwAs always, there is this illogical tendency to restrict what people can talk about and the means by which they can do so.
Hyperlinking is the equivalent of providing citation/credit for the content presented. Hyperlinking just provides a more direct method of "Instant" fact checking at the click of a mouse?
What a boon to the effectiveness of communication hyperlinking is. Why restrict it now?
the constitution had its phrasing in the form of "...abridging the freedom of speech" for the very point that it is meant to prevent those in power from imposing their views on the masses and more importantly the minority. just because the minority, which is often the controlling power, doesn't like the way people use/abuse that freedom doesn't give the said majority any more right to limit that right.... simply put two wrongs do not make a right... and limiting free speech is that second wrong.
"Did it ever dawn on you that the rest of the world calls 'soccer' football, and that you lot are the ignorant minority?"
Actually, don't only English-speaking countries call it football? The point still remains: there are different kinds of football, but basically only one kind of soccer. The soccer word makes more sense.
I thought the nazis went out in the 40's and the socialists went out in the 80's? So now we have this 'state approved website' bs? Those germans never learn I guess... as Lt Frank Drebin said when questioned about the city being full of Baboons, "Isn't that the fault of the voters?"
You are right that the US First Amendment lists no specific exceptions. But as you concede, the absolute position of the First Amendment has been eroded over time in the US courts. The exceptions listed in that second clause correspond closely to the free speech exceptions sanctified by US legal precedent, and I strongly suspect that the drafters of this legislation used that as a source. One more time:
This seems close to the US principles of national security classification, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, the threat of violence, libel and slander, trade secrets, etc.
To my mind, it's better legislative practice to give an exhaustive list of valid exceptions to an absolute principle, than to allow courts to invent new exceptions over time. I would consider the latter to be far more susceptible to abuse and inconsistent application. Now you could argue that this list is wrong, either in what it includes or excludes, or in being unclearly expressed, but again you would probably have similar opinions about the body of US free speech precedent.
You could argue that the existence of any exceptions whatsoever deny absolute freedom of speech, and I would have to agree with you, but by that measure no-one (the US included) has free speech, so it would not be a useful relative measure.
BTW, Great Britain is not a country (or a state, or any sort of political entity). It's an island.
And you can also see A translation of the artice.
Make even shorter URLs - 8LN.org
[Summarized a bit]
5. This case is being judged based on the fact that the two [Radical] articles have been found illegal ("onrechtmatig") wrt DB [Deutche Bahn] by the court of Amsterdam in DB vs XS4ALL.
6. The court limits itself to the hyperlinks since DB limited itself in her comments to the hyperlinks and failed to explain how Indymedia refered to illegal information otherwise.
7. The question is whether it can be asked of Indymedia to remove hyperlinks who point to illegal information from the website(s) under her control.
8. It's being judged that this can be asked from Indymedia. By allowing users to publish information on her servers she is, just an ISPs but also like a newspaper editor, responsible for publication published with her cooperation, although with applicable restrictions.
Because Indymedia knows that the hyperlinks placed on her website point to illegal information wrt DB she acts illegaly wrt DB by not taking any measures to cease the distribution of the illegal
information.
The fact that Indymedia doesn't consider itself the owner of the information is irrelevant. The form of the hyperlinks is in this context irrelevant. The main point is that Indymedia makes
it (and keeps making it) possible to reach the information. Whether that is by direct or indirect means is irrelevant. In this context this is even more so since the texts next to the hyperlinks explicitly call the reader to go to the illegal articles together with needed instructions (of how to get there).
The circumstances that the information will remain available after removing of the hyperlinks because the information is not hosted on the Indymedia server does not take away that Indymedia's actions are illegal and as such does not lessen the above.
The legality of hyperlinks in general is not under discussion. It is the contents of the publication to which the hyperlinks provide access.
The relation with the European guideline for electronic trade raised by Indymedia does not play a role here since it relates to e-commerce which is another subject.
Indymedia failed to convince that she wouldn't be able to remove the hyperlinks from her website because she herself states that she reserves the right to remove certain messages, among others "ripped software and fascistic messages" so there is no reason to believe that she wouldn't be able to remove the hyperlinks in question as well.
Since the two Radikal articles are illegal wrt DB and since they can result in the endangerment of people and goods, the order to Indymedia to remove the hyperlinks to make it impossible to access the information is not in conflict with the principles of freedom of speech and press.
10. A general ban to remove all documentation which is illegal wrt DB has not been established and as such can not be assigned in that form.
11. Based on the above the claim will be awarded as listed below. Indymedia will be responsible for the costs of this procedure.
[Indymedia is ordered to remove the links immediately with a EUR 5000,- penalty per day up to a maximum of EUR 200.000 and she must pay the costs of the process, so far established to be EUR 270 for DB and EUR 730 for the "procureur"]
I was on the right track-
Thanks- you saved me some research
Nah, both the verdict against IndyMedia NL, and the one against XS4ALL upon it was based, are solely based on the big pockets of one judge, not Dutch law.
The mere fact that tank had that Radikal mirror on his homepage for over six years is enough to exclude Deutsche Bahn from expedited procedings.
And sabotage guidelines have been defended by the gobmunt again and again in parlement as protected free speech - last case was an Al Quida manual.
... What's the regular expression to change
blah
into:
blah (URL)
The Dutch do not have a constitution as such. The thingy called Grondwet here has little more value than TP. Tho the courts have recently begun to apply it in civilian cases, it's value agains gobmunt is zilch. Worst, all gobmunt hats are immune to criminal law. The Kingdom of the Netherlands was founded as a vasal state of Prussia and it still shows.
What we have as civil rights is by international treaty, and those usually read like "a civillian would have a right hadn't his gobmunt made a law against it". What remains is when EU Court reads things differently than EU Commission and EU Council intended. And as getting their verdict takes up to decade few people go that far.
Why go to all that bother? Just import a moose from Canada and turn it loose near the tracks. It will immediately challenge the first train it sees, derailing it with no human intervention required.
;)
Of course, one generally needs a new moose afterward
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/17/12 39225&mode=thread&tid=153
I want to know where there's a link on any page at bahn.de that indirectly gets to Radikal A cursory examination shows that virtually every link on their site points to other links within the bahn.de domain. I'm sure someone with sufficiently Mad Skillz could whip up a bot to map out the link structure, and find the shortest number of links to follow to get there, with a description that even a dumbass judge can follow
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Looks like Angelfire doesn't allow anyone to make links to files hosted by them, outside of their domain:
a di ngfaq.html
http://angelfire.lycos.com/doc/general/remotelo
(sorry about the munged URL)
Bandwidth use is their reason, but, but they could extend their CYA to other links, too.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
This is bullshit too. Many of them, including their grand wizard, were spoiled Saudi party boys gone wrong. Their leader's main beef is supposedly US military hardware and personnel in Saudi Arabia, even though he trained on American military hardware with American personnel in Afghanistan against the Soviets... he didn't really discover the Palestinians until after 9/11. These people claim to be orthodox Muslims but they carouse in strip clubs, get drunk, and shoot guns off in trailer parks. They claim to have read the Q'uran yet they leave copies of it in cars they rented in their own names as well as in strip clubs that they frequented. They claim to be waging jihad - which even in its most violent forms presumes a tradition of justification not far removed from the Christian just war tradition - and yet they killed many innocents (many Muslims included) to strike a nebulous symbolic blow to a dying empire that will now destroy many more innocents (most of them Muslims) in its final paroxysms (while Europe, Russia, and China wait in the wings to see who will rule the ruins of the dying American empire, on the backs of millions of people, many of them Muslims). These people have as much right to call themselves activists as they have to call themselves Muslims.
(PS: IANAM - I am not a Muslim)
Why is everybody suddenly comparing all sorts of imaginary crimes with huge acts of terror? The only ones in this story are the imaginary girl and the boy. There are exactly 0 victims. Besides. I know 25 y.o. guys that have a rather normal realtionship with 15 y.o. girls. So I really do not even see the problem.
0x or or snor perron?!
I saw a similar stupid American earlier who thought Dutch equalled Deutsch. Sigh.
/. should stop covering news from outside the US, or /. users should be required to do an IQ test.
Either
You'd have to be one sick puppy if you're 25 and you are seeing a 15 year old. Either that, or you must be really horrible with the ladies since you can't get a woman and instead have to prey on little naive school girls.